Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Roger Pearse · 09-05-2009, 09:41 AM

Schwartz' discussion of the editions of the HE must be elsewhere; it isn't in the GCS text that I linked to (drat).

show_no_mercy · 09-05-2009, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

In 248 CE, Origen wrote in Contra Celsus, Book I, chapter 47, that Josephus was a writer who wrote about John the Baptist, and Josephus is described by Origen as: "although not believing in Jesus as the Christ..." This indicates that the phrase in the TF, "He was the Christ," was originally, "He was not the Christ," true to the religious leanings of Josephus. And, if Josephus wrote about John the Baptist, then he is very likely to have written about Jesus. This theory seems to fit a much more likely scenario, that a Christian copier slightly revised a passage that would otherwise be blasphemy, because it is less sinful to deceive in Jesus' favor than to help propagate a blasphemous lie. To wholly invent a passage from nothing would be an unlikely straight-out deceit. Josephus wrote the original TF, and it was revised in favor of Christianity sometime between 248 CE and Eusebius. Eusebius may have been the one who made the revision, but it was more likely someone before him, since Eusebius writes like he has no knowledge that the TF is not the original.

Why would Josephus say that this Jesus fellow was "not" the Christ if he never makes that disclaimer for any of the other wanna-be Christs in any of his works? He doesn't even use the word "Christ" for Cyrus or Vespasian - the latter Josephus argued was the real messiah or christ after the destruction of Jerusalem.

I read Origen's "Contra Celcus" 1.47 saying that Josephus' reference to Jesus and his brother James in Ant. 20 meant that the phrase "who was called Christ" wasn't in Origen's version of Antiquities. The TF didn't exist period in Origen's day.

andrewcriddle · 09-05-2009, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by the_cave

I remain puzzled by Eusebius' claim that the TF follows the account of John. Is this really what the Greek says? Here is the text and translation from Textexcavation:

Ταυτα περι του Ιωαννου διελθων, και του σωτηρος ημων κατα την αυτην του συγγραμματος ιστοριαν ωδε πως μεμνηται·

Hactenus de Iohanne. sed et de salvatore domino in eisdem historiarum suarum libris idem Ioseppus ita scribit:

After going through these things concerning John, [Josephus] also makes mention of our savior in the same work* as follows:

I think that Eusebius is working on the basis that (according to the Gospels )John died before Jesus. He has forgotten that Josephus' account of John is back story and comes after the TF in book XVIII.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 09-05-2009, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roger Pearse

Interesting thoughts, Andrew.

I have a note from somewhere: that the HE was composed in 311, and went through 4 editions, the last appearing after the fall of Licinius in 323 and involving removing complimentary material about him from the text. But some of this material survives in a family of mss, which seems to have been corrected against a copy of the 3rd edition. All this, I think, is discussed in Schwartz' GCS edition? I never got around to reading that, tho, so don't know what the evidence is. If you do, I'd be interested to hear it.

Hi Roger

There is a discussion of Schwartz' theory (and others) in Kirsopp Lake's Loeb
Eusebius

NB Schwartz' model is slightly different from the one I was using but agrees in dating the material about Maximinus to c 315 CE.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 09-05-2009, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Andrew,

Are you sketching this out to get a reasoned response? Here?

There are a lot of "probably"s in this exposition. While I do not necessarily dispute the chronology you lay out, which authority (or authorities) are you relying upon for this relative order?

Grant Eusebius as Church Historian Barnes Constantine and Eusebius

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I'd be more careful how you deal with the allegedly forged Acts of Pilate published by co-emperor Maximinus around 311 CE. Your language is loaded, essentially mirroring Eusebius' opinion about it. English translations of Church History vol 1.ix.4, such as Kirsopp Lake's, also buy into this kind of loaded language by speaking of "the crime of the Saviour's death" when crime is not even implied in the Greek.

The clause TA PERI TO SWTHPION PAQOS AUTOIS TOLMHQENTA PERIEXEI is rendered "They relate that the crime of the Saviour's death ..." by Lake (1926). Philip Schaff was much closer, IMHO, with "the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour ..." (1890). How that passage got twisted into "crime" is beyond me, other than the influence of Lake's personal religious faith.

I think that the issue is how TOLMHQENTA relates to the rest of the clause. Does it mean "They relate that the audacious [criminal] death of the Saviour ..." or "They audaciously [blasphemously] relate that the death of the Saviour ..."

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse · 09-05-2009, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

There is a discussion of Schwartz' theory (and others) in Kirsopp Lake's Loeb
Eusebius

Appreciate this - thanks!

The idea of searching Archive.org on creator tags and looking for the fathers was new to me also; thank you.

ApostateAbe · 09-05-2009, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by show_no_mercy

Quote:

Originally Posted by ApostateAbe

In 248 CE, Origen wrote in Contra Celsus, Book I, chapter 47, that Josephus was a writer who wrote about John the Baptist, and Josephus is described by Origen as: "although not believing in Jesus as the Christ..." This indicates that the phrase in the TF, "He was the Christ," was originally, "He was not the Christ," true to the religious leanings of Josephus. And, if Josephus wrote about John the Baptist, then he is very likely to have written about Jesus. This theory seems to fit a much more likely scenario, that a Christian copier slightly revised a passage that would otherwise be blasphemy, because it is less sinful to deceive in Jesus' favor than to help propagate a blasphemous lie. To wholly invent a passage from nothing would be an unlikely straight-out deceit. Josephus wrote the original TF, and it was revised in favor of Christianity sometime between 248 CE and Eusebius. Eusebius may have been the one who made the revision, but it was more likely someone before him, since Eusebius writes like he has no knowledge that the TF is not the original.

Why would Josephus say that this Jesus fellow was "not" the Christ if he never makes that disclaimer for any of the other wanna-be Christs in any of his works? He doesn't even use the word "Christ" for Cyrus or Vespasian - the latter Josephus argued was the real messiah or christ after the destruction of Jerusalem.

I read Origen's "Contra Celcus" 1.47 saying that Josephus' reference to Jesus and his brother James in Ant. 20 meant that the phrase "who was called Christ" wasn't in Origen's version of Antiquities. The TF didn't exist period in Origen's day.

I take it that Jesus was well-known as "the Christ," and Josephus wanted to counter that increasingly popular idea. It seems less likely to me that Origen would say that Josephus denied Jesus as the Christ if Josephus did not explicitly say so, and there is a phrase in the TF that seems very similar to such a statement, but for a minor one-word change.

DCHindley · 09-05-2009, 05:17 PM

Andrew,

I want to emphasize that I wasn't questioning the link between the two subjects, but questioned your casual use of loaded language that echos Eusebius' charge that the Acts of Pilate were cleverly woven forgeries (PLASMA).

BTW, chapter xii for xi was a typo. Chapter 11 is 2 chapters from chapter 9.

Eusebius has more to say about them, in Book 9.v.1:

Having therefore forged Acts of Pilate and our Saviour full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ, they sent them with the emperor’s approval to the whole of the empire subject to him, with written commands that they should be openly posted to the view of all in every place, both in country and city, and that the schoolmasters should give them to their scholars, instead of their customary lessons, to be studied and learned by heart.

I note that it is here Acts (official memorandums) of Pilate and our Savior, and not just of Pilate. It is not clear to me whether he is saying that the memorandums were supposed to have derived from Pilate AND the savior (had Jesus left memorandums?), or maybe covered both subjects (that is, included both reports about Jesus' activities as well as Pilates' actions regarding him). Eusebius clearly thinks of them as anti-Christian propaganda that was "fashioned" (or forged) to blaspheme Christ.

What else is he supposed to call these Acts, even if true (and I am not saying they are, but I am also not saying they are not)? Maximinus is claiming to have opened up the official archives and published what was there, because they prove Christians follow a man who was a criminal. Wasn't that what Tertullian challenged the Roman authorities to do?

That Christians were followers of a criminal was Maximinus' position, and his officials went out of their way to get proof of that, pulling a G. W. Bush by torturing confessions about Christians' lurid behavior, etc, out of poor innocents, if Eusebius is to be believed.

I suppose that his contention about Maximunus' Acts of Pilate might impact an analysis of why Eusebius would bring in the testimonium into the argument. If Eusebius has just asserted that Josephus places Pilate later than Maximinus' Acts of Pilate, it would naturally bring up the question of whether Christ actually flourished in Pilate's time. Bringing in Josephus' "testimony" about Jesus might help bolster claims in the Christian gospels, but does this leave open the possibility that Eusebius also jumped into that kind of game and himself "fashioned" a testimony from Josephus?

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

BTW, for the curious, the TF in Eusebius' Church History is in Book 1.xii.7-8, or 2 chapters down the pike.

DCH

Actually the claim about the forgery of the Acts of Pilate occurs twice in Book 1 first in chapter ix then immediately after the TF, two chapters later in chapter xi (not xii), we have

Quote:

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.

Hence the use of the TF is closely associated here with a reference to the Acts of Pilate.
Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 09-06-2009, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

Andrew,

I want to emphasize that I wasn't questioning the link between the two subjects, but questioned your casual use of loaded language that echos Eusebius' charge that the Acts of Pilate were cleverly woven forgeries (PLASMA).

BTW, chapter xii for xi was a typo. Chapter 11 is 2 chapters from chapter 9.

Eusebius has more to say about them, in Book 9.v.1:

Having therefore forged Acts of Pilate and our Saviour full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ, they sent them with the emperor’s approval to the whole of the empire subject to him, with written commands that they should be openly posted to the view of all in every place, both in country and city, and that the schoolmasters should give them to their scholars, instead of their customary lessons, to be studied and learned by heart.

I note that it is here Acts (official memorandums) of Pilate and our Savior, and not just of Pilate. It is not clear to me whether he is saying that the memorandums were supposed to have derived from Pilate AND the savior (had Jesus left memorandums?), or maybe covered both subjects (that is, included both reports about Jesus' activities as well as Pilates' actions regarding him). Eusebius clearly thinks of them as anti-Christian propaganda that was "fashioned" (or forged) to blaspheme Christ.

What else is he supposed to call these Acts, even if true (and I am not saying they are, but I am also not saying they are not)? Maximinus is claiming to have opened up the official archives and published what was there, because they prove Christians follow a man who was a criminal. Wasn't that what Tertullian challenged the Roman authorities to do?

Hi David

IIUC you accept that these Acts of Pilate contained, (maybe with other material), an account, supposdly by Pilate, of why he [Pilate] was justified in executing Jesus. If so, and if Eusebius is correct in claiming that this material dated the death of Jesus to the seventh year of Tiberius, then Eusebius would seem right in regarding this material as inauthentic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

I suppose that his contention about Maximunus' Acts of Pilate might impact an analysis of why Eusebius would bring in the testimonium into the argument. If Eusebius has just asserted that Josephus places Pilate later than Maximinus' Acts of Pilate, it would naturally bring up the question of whether Christ actually flourished in Pilate's time. Bringing in Josephus' "testimony" about Jesus might help bolster claims in the Christian gospels, but does this leave open the possibility that Eusebius also jumped into that kind of game and himself "fashioned" a testimony from Josephus?

DCH

It is certainly possible that Eusebius composed the TF and first used it in the Church History. However arguments like those of Ken Olson, in which the detailed content of the TF is linked to its context in Eusebius, probably work better for the Demonstratio than for the History.

DCHindley · 09-06-2009, 08:48 AM

Andrew,

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

While I do not necessarily dispute the chronology you lay out, which authority (or authorities) are you relying upon for this relative order?

Grant Eusebius as Church Historian Barnes Constantine and Eusebius

Thank you for that, as I may be reading up on the subject in the near future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

The clause TA PERI TO SWTHPION PAQOS AUTOIS TOLMHQENTA PERIEXEI is rendered "They relate that the crime of the Saviour's death ..." by Lake (1926). Philip Schaff was much closer, IMHO, with "the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour ..." (1890). How that passage got twisted into "crime" is beyond me, other than the influence of Lake's personal religious faith.

I think that the issue is how TOLMHQENTA relates to the rest of the clause. Does it mean "They relate that the audacious [criminal] death of the Saviour ..." or "They audaciously [blasphemously] relate that the death of the Saviour ..."

Unfortunately, my originally just barely adequate abilities in Greek have been ravished by 35 years of neglect, and I have to admit that the Greek constructions of Eusebius (and Josephus as well) are far more complex and harder to interpret than the relatively simple NT Greek is.

Without recourse to a morphologically tagged Greek text of Eusebius' CH (HE, if you prefer), much less his other works, I have tried to lay out the Greek text and figure out what it means. I use BibleWorks (for Greek words that may have cognate forms in the NT or LXX), plus Kalos and visits to Perseus (not the same since they had their sever crash a few years ago and discovered they had not backed up any modifications to their search tools for a good while), and of course I do have several lexicons - classical (L&S short) and NT (BAG, yes, out of date).

I know that TOLMHQENTA is a participle of the verb TOLMAW (to dare, risk), either an accusative masculine singular aorist passive voice, OR an nominative/vocative/accusative neuter plural aorist passive voice. The kind of action indicated is punctiliar (happened on one or more specific points in the past), with a time action that is antecedent (precedes) to that of the main verb. It does not have an article associated with it (no "the") indicating a temporal translation, something like "having been dared, when he was dared, after he was dared, after he has been dared, after he has been dared."

So the trick is matching this participle to its related verb. You think it has to do with the suffering of the Savior, or what they relate, but I am not sure what verb this is based on. I'm having trouble parsing DIADEDWKOTWN (some weird active perfect or pluperfect form of DIADIDWMI, distribute, give?), is this what might be referred to?

Surely Rabbi, thou knowest.

DCH

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

09-05-2009, 09:41 AM	#11
Roger Pearse Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: N/A Posts: 4,370	Schwartz' discussion of the editions of the HE must be elsewhere; it isn't in the GCS text that I linked to (drat).

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.