Switch89

What do you guys think about Christopher Price's objections to Ken Olson's theory that Eusebius invented the Josephan references to Jesus?

http://www.christiancadre.org/member..._josephus.html

ApostateAbe

Can you give the most relevant points?

Switch89

Here is what I think is most relevant:

De Excidio Hierosolymitano, also known as “Psuedo-Hegesippus” recounts the Testimonium but never notes that Josephus called Jesus "the Chris." The omission is significant because the author was used the Testimonium as a polemic for the divinity of Christ.


Writing around 30 years after Eusebius, Psuedo-Hegeippus quoted the Testimonium early in the fourth century. Psuedo-Hegesippus itself was cited early in the fifth century and the oldest relevant manuscript dates from the sixth century. Here is the text:


The Jews themselves also bear witness to Christ, as appears by Josephus, the writer of their history, who says thus: 'That there was at that time a wise man, if (says he) it be lawful to have him called a man, a doer of wonderful works, who appeared to his disciples after the third day from his death, alive again according to the writings of the prophets, who foretold these and innumerable other miraculous events concerning him: from whom began the congregation of Christians, yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart and his prejudicial intention. However, it was no prejudice to the truth that he was not a believer, but this adds more weight to his testimony, that while he was an unbeliever and unwilling, this should be true, he has not denied it to be so.
Pseudo-Hegesippus has cited every positive statement about Jesus in support of in his argument that Jesus was divine, except one. He notes that Jesus was wise, recites the "if it is lawful" reference, notes that he did "wonderful works," and records that he "appeared to his disciples" and that he did many other miraculous things. However, Pseudo-Hegesippus fails to note that Josephus claimed that Jesus was the Christ. In fact, he understands that Josephus was an unbeliever. It is very unlikely that Ambrose would have ignored such a strong attestation of Jesus -- if it existed in his manuscript. It seems, therefore, that his manuscript did not contain that phrase, though it is possible that he would leave out a statement that "he was called the Christ" because it implied disbelief.


Further evidence that Psuedo-Hegesippus is independent of Eusebius and the manuscript tradition he issued is provided by Alice Whealey:


Other than Josephus, its sources are all Latin or, like the Bible, available in Latin translation. For example, it used the Latin rather than Greek version of 1 Maccabees. Eusebius’ works were not yet available in Latin when it was written in the late fourth century.
Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus, page 31.


Finally, Pseudo-Hegesippus follows the order of events reported by Josephus rather than the order preserved by Eusebius; first discussing the Testimonium and then the passage about John the Baptist. Eusebius, in Church History, discusses Josephus’ reference to John the Baptist first and then the Testimonium. Moreover, Pseudo-Hegesippus includes Josephus’ discussion of Paulina, ignored by early Christian writers, but which immediately follows the Testimonium in Antiquities. Accordingly, the evidence strongly suggests that Pseudo-Hegesippus relied on a manuscript of Antiquities that was independent of the one used by Eusebius.

ApostateAbe

Seems like Christopher Price has the advantage. Plus one for the Christian apologist.

Toto

Thread on this in 2004

Thread arguing that Eusebius also forged Hegesippus also this thread

What is raising this subject again? I think that Ken Olson wrote a thesis on the question, which went through peer review of the highest sort. At one point, I had a link to it, and will try to find it.

Switch89

Thank you very much Toto!! I actually own a copy of Olson's 1999 article on his theory that Eusebius forged the Testimonium Flavium, but I have none of his articles beyond that. If he has any responses to his critics, and you know where to access them, I would appreciate it very much if you would post them.

Roger Pearse

We've been over all this stuff many times, I think. Thanks for Toto for some links.

One point worth adding is on the Agapius material supposedly quoting the TF. I've been looking into this, and it is more than questionable whether Agapius actually contains or wrote the statements attributed to him by Shlomo Pines.

Doug Shaver

I decline to form an opinion about Price's critique of Olson's argument without being able to read Olson's argument.

I am persuaded that Josephus never mentioned Jesus. As for who the forger(s) might have been, though, off the top of my head I think Eusebius is just too convenient a suspect.

DCHindley

Well, I think Ken might tell us that his hypothesis has been given the cold shoulder by most NT critics.

Olson's hypothesis was published online for a while but is no longer available free. I posted some links to an essay he posted on a discussion board and his own now-dormant blog here:
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread....on#post5663868

I would agree that it's weakest link is in the part dependent on Pseudo-Hegesippus.

One problem is that folks tend to confuse the real Hegesippus (who seems to have paraphrased history as presented in Josephus' Wars of the Jews and inserted links to key figures in early Christian traditions, and whose real work may have contributed to later writer's confusion over exactly what Josephus actually said) with later writers like Pseudo-Hegesippus who either assumed his name or had their originally independent but similar works attributed to him by others. I felt Olson made no effort to emphasize that the work he is referring to falls into the latter category and is later than Eusebius' time, although to his defence he was directing it to other academics, folks who would already know that well.

DCH