maryhelena

Thanks, yalla. No, I'm not familiar with this material - but sure looks to be interesting. Thanks for the link - and I'll give it some thinking.....

TedM

Thanks again Mary! Now that's more like it (although the temple isn't mention still..dang).

What can you tell me regarding the authenticity of that passage Mary? I just read that it most likely was a complete interpolation about 1000 years after Eusebius. What evidence is there for/against? Feel free to point me somewhere to read..

Ted

TedM

Yep. Saw the same thing Jay. Interpolation of Origen is a possible explanation, but there may be an alternative that makes some sense...still thinking about it..

maryhelena

So:

Melito of Sardis, d.160 c.e. and the mention of Augustus
Tertullian, 160 -220 c.e. and the mention of Augustus
Eusebius, 263 - 339 c.e. and the mention of a crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius, 21 c.e.

And we have the wonder-doer story, now found in Slavonic Josephus, with a birth narrative around the 15th year of Herod the Great, 25 b.c. That makes the wonder-doer, JC, around 46/47 years old in 21 ce. Which corresponds with gJohn and his 'not yet fifty years' for JC.

Looks to me that the gospel JC storyboard had an original crucifixion in 21 c.e. - thus giving Pilate 19 c.e. for the start of his rule - a time slot in which the TF is now in Antiquities (as it is in Slavonic Josephus).

Obviously, the above does not necessarily mean that there were christians doing their thing during the reign of Augustus (well, at least not in Jerusalem) - all it suggests is that the JC storyboard had it's first dating from a nativity in 25 b.c. to a crucifixion in 21 c.e.

gLuke comes along later - and adds some developments to the JC storyboard....

Thanks, yalla, for adding more coals to the fire....

(for anyone wondering why 25 b.c. would be of interest for a birth narrative for JC - well, JC is the chief corner stone of the new spiritual temple, is he not? - and 25 b.c. is around 490 years from 516/515 b.c. when the second Jerusalem temple was dedicated....so, onward with building that new spiritual temple.....)

DCHindley

It even goes beyond that. See this post from April, under the thread "Acts of Pontius Pilate in Justin Martyr." Essentially, Eusebius claimed honorary pagan priests appointed by co-emperor Maximin published, around 311 CE, a series of memoirs of Pilate and, if I'm reading it correctly, Jesus himself, which date the events portrayed to a consulship that the consul tables tell us occurred in the 7th year of Tiberius (about 21 CE).

Kirsopp Lake, in the first Loeb volume of Church History, translates 1.9.3 to say

"So that there is clear proof of the forgery of those who recently or formerly have issued a series of Pilate's Reports about our Saviour; for in them the dates mentioned convict the forgers of untruth. They relate that the crime of the saviour's death fell in the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which was the seventh year of his reign ..."

However, I think Lake is using inflammatory language not found in the Greek.

The translation of Arthur Cushman McGiffert in Nicene & Post Nicene Fathers 2nd series volume 1, is a lot closer to the Greek, IMHO:

"Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators. For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put in the fourth ... etc"

The line is "ta peri to swthrion paqos outois tolmhqenta periecei" or "the-(things) concerning the Saviour's passion they-dare to-assert". The Greek word paqos ("pathos") in the bible is almost universally used in a negative sense to refer to a person's rash acts (think "pathetic"). So, it could be asked, did these Reports accuse Christ of rash behavior, and not his suffering?

If rash behavior, then the temple cleansing might be the event, but it could also be accepting royal accolades from the crowds as he rides into town.

This does not even touch on the matter of whether the text of Josephus was changed on the orders of Eusebius or Constantine himself to make Pilate start his rule in 26 CE, and not 19 CE as some internal evidence in the text of Josephus suggests. Refer to a very fine essay in Daniel Schwartz's Studies in the Jewish Background of Christianity (or via: amazon.co.uk) entitled "Pontius Pilate's appointment to office and the Chronology of Josephus' Antiquities, Books 18-20" (1992). Schwartz, who is actually expanding on Robert Eisler's hypothesis from the 30's, establishes the case much more convincingly than many realize.

DCH

maryhelena

Sorry, can't point you anywhere re positive reviews of Slavonic Josephus, ie the wonder-worker story and the birth narrative. Obviously, it contradicts the historicists assumed JC mantra - so is only going to get labeled 'forgery' etc. But I see no reason why ahistoricist/mythicists should allow the historicists to get away with such a blatant dismissal simply because it does not fit their preconceived JC ideas...

Dating Slavonic Josephus is dating the manuscripts, the translation - that dating has nothing to do with dating the wonder-doer story. There is no way that I can imagine that someone took the gLuke storyline - a storyline that is viewed as the only 'confirmed' dating re the 15th year of Tiberius - and then creates another storyline that dates JC to the 15th year of Herod the Great and JtB to being active in 6 c.e. What would be the point of putting the story backwards in time? It's more logical to see an earlier storyline being updated than seeing a current story being backdated....

The Slavonic Josephus early dating throws light on the TF in Antiquities, it throws light on the mention of christians in the reign of Augustus, it throws light on Eusebius and his reference to a crucifixion in 21 c.e., it throws light on gJohn and his 'not yet fifty years'. It also throws light on the 'missing' birth naratives in gJohn and gMark...

So, all in all, Slavonic Josephus hold much 'gold' for the ahistoricists/mythicists...

TedM

Fascinating stuff. An obvious question about the Slavonic version since Josephus himself is considered a candidate for authorship is whether the passages contain Josephus phrases. Surely that has been studied.. Have you seen anything on that?

maryhelena

The historicists position seems to relate to a partial interpolation in the TF. And, as the article by Christopher Price relates, the remaining words are Josephan. If this is so - then it would follow that Josephus wrote the version of the TF that is presently preserved in Slavonic Josephus - and which possibly was in an earlier version of War. That’s the obvious logic...but the straight path is not always the most interesting path....

(Christopher Price

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm#partial )

I have my doubts that Josephus is the originator of the wonder-doer story. If Josephus wrote that story when did he do so? He says he studied the Jewish philosophies from his 16th year until his 19th year, having been, at age 14 renowned for his learning. He gives his birth date at around 37 c.e. Plus 19 years and it’s 46 c.e. Which is a time period in which Philo is still alive. A Jewish philosopher who has (Rachel Elior) placed a non-historical people in the land of Palestine, ie a philosophical ideal made pseudo-historical. Philo died around 50 c.e. His date of birth is not given. It is Philo, not Josephus, who would have had first hand contact with the Hasmoneans who survived the events of 37 b.c. and found their way to Alexandria. It is the Hasmoneans, having lost their King and High Priest to a horrendous end, that would have had the motivation and incentive to seek an otherworldly kingdom, ie a spiritual temple. Combine that with Philo’s Logos and interesting developments could be on the cards.

Josephus, whoever he is (I happen to think that that name is a pseudonym) is a bit like ‘Paul’ - a latecomer to the party. (and also Luke of course....)So although the TF might contain his way of writing - and hence also the larger account preserved in Slavonic Josephus, the origin of the wonder-doer story lies elsewhere.

If there were Christians (however defined - which is basically followers of an anointed one) during the reign of Augustus, who died in 14 c.e. - then, again, Josephus is ruled out as the originator of the wonder-doer story.

If Josephus has set up Judas the Galilean as a pseudo-historical figure ‘channelling’ Antigonus, then the much debated 4th philosophy, is just that, the followers of the anointed crucified and beheaded last King and High Priest of the Jews. In other words; the 4th philosophy is nothing more than the new philosophical/theological developments that derived from the end of the Hasmonean rule in 37 b.c. The new, otherworldly, kingdom without end, the spiritual temple for Jews and Gentiles.

TedM

I don't understand all of that and at this point am not going to try to, except to ask why Josephus is ruled out as the originator if there were Christians during the reign of Augustus? Sorry, this is all new to me..

My question though had to do with with a textual analysis of the Slavonic Josephus references, and not of the supposed 'partial TF'. The partial may be Josephus - like and contain parts of the Slavonic, but I was wondering if the Slavonic has been studied from that angle, to your knowledge. IF if has strongly-similar Josephus phrasing throughout, that would greatly add to the position that it is genuine to him.

Thanks, Ted

maryhelena

Josephus was born in 37 c.e. If there were christians in the time of Augustus, prior to 14 c.e. , then there were christians prior to the birth of Josephus - therefore - those christians would have been familiar with a JC type story - as in the wonder-doer story that is now preserved in Slavonic Josephus.

No, I don't know about any textual analysis re the Slavonic Josephus with either War or Antiquities.

Words are one thing - story something else. All word, textual analysis, will show is that two texts probably have the same writer - it will not tell you that the author of the texts is the originator of the story. Re-telling a story in ones own words does not make one the originator of the story. We don't maintain that gMark originated the JC story - mythicists opt for a pseudo -historical take on 'Paul's' JC; historicists will have some oral traditions and layers of Q. Why then should a story in Josephus not be a second-hand story? Of course Josephus can make up stories - the question here is did he make up this story. The indications seem to be, for me at any rate, that this wonder-doer story is older than Josephus.