Layman

I saw Olson's post and look forward to any revision of his article, though I noticed he does not seem to deal with some of the criticism he's received.

For those who do not remember, Olson made an appearance here to respond to some of my criticism's of his theory. After reflecting on his points and doing more research, I posted my response to his article here:

http://www.geocities.com/christianca..._josephus.html

It does not appear that the new perspective he voiced on Cross Talk deals with much of the criticism, though perhaps he has some more linguistic evidence. Yet he continues to assume that there was only one manuscript tradition at the time of Eusebius. There appears to have been at least one, if not two, other different manuscript traditions with the TF that predate Eusebius:

Furthermore, the crux of his argument, Eusebius' so-called "apologetic purpose" in inventing the TF is particular unpersuasive:

spin

Demonstrate it by showing me examples of the exact phraseology of the citation.


spin

Vinnie

I find your arguments on the citations of a different TF in the fourth century interesting. Has Olson responded to these claims?

I really don't think there is any doubt about the shorter reference being authentic and the longer one partially so.

Vinnie

rlogan

How does the assertion of finding alternative TF versions after Eusebius validate the theory that they existed beforehand?

Vinnie

I'm guessing that they write so close to Eusebius. If he invented it they have to know his version of it--which should be the only one in existence. Showing knowledge of other versions show Eusebius did not invent it.

Price discussed this in the section "External Evidence of Independent Manuscripts."

Vinnie

rlogan

Not familiar with Ambrose. I am confused the way it is presented. I do not know exactly what the alleged TF quote is because the beginning quote mark appears, but not the ending one.

Similarly for Jerome.

Would it be possible, Layman, to get the original citations for these? It looks like the secondary source might be Whealey. Not sure...

Layman

I'm sure it's possible.

I tihnk Muller has them on his website, in fact.

Peter Kirby

The quotes from Ambrose et al. derive from Whiston's own eighteenth century appendix to the English translation used all over the 'net. These quotes and others have been compiled by David Hindley here:

Citations concerning the Testimonium

I might be able to look up the Latin or the Greek for some of these.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

If I remember correctly, I originally got Ambros and Jerome from Whiston's appendix

rlogan

Thank you Layman, and thank you Peter.

This TF area is supercool.

Let's look at that Whiston translation from Ambrose. But first, what Hindley says about Whiston:

"Bear in mind that Whiston sometimes condenses or paraphrases passages without making note of it."

Here goes:

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 fore. told these, and innumerable other miraculous events concerning him; from whom began the congregation of Christians, and hath penetrated among all sorts of men; nor does there remain any nation in the Roman world, which continues strangers to his religion. If the Jews do not believe us, let them at least believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner, and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer, as to what he himself said; but thus he spoke, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart and his perfidious 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.


Can there be little doubt that this is a paraphrase? The interjections disqualify it as a quote. But he's scrambled it up too.

scrambled TF and ham...

edited to add: could be ambrose, could be both doing the paraphrasing