Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Peter Kirby · 03-19-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

I object in a friendly way to the term "bias" because it implies a non-objective view when in my case at least it is the evidence that has led me away from my former fundy gospel singer view to the present (evolving) view.

I am also uncomfortable with the language of bias. My statement is that third parties have attributed bias to persons (of various views).

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Christians as a group - to a man - are driven by faith. And this faith, logically, is absurd. To them the stakes are very high - eternal life. When eternal life is the reward of an irrational superstition and winning converts is a central motivation - then a TF interpolation is a slam dunk. And intellectually dishonest arguments on the C&E page are also symptomatic.

What do you mean by "a slam dunk"? A foregone conclusion, a necessary consequence? But we don't see a similar pro-Christ intrusion into Philo (who doesn't mention Christ), Tacitus (where the mention is not positive of Christ), Justus of Tiberias (who is noted by Photius), or several other classical authors. So the desire of winning converts did not lead Christians to insert testimonies to particularly Christian beliefs into non-Christian authors, except in this case of Josephus. Thus, it isn't a foregone conclusion that a classical author would be so interpolated if preserved. Further, the Testimonium, if one looks at its history of reception, has been much more prominent and important in the modern centuries than in ancient and medieval times. That said, the passage does seem to have some importance for Eusebius, and that should be investigated.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

It is a much better explanation than Josephus being a lonely purveyor of an astonishing character, in such brief terms, out of context, and not in his style.

Now you are adding to your argument, and in ways that our more substantial: the length of the account, its context, and the style are all, naturally, to be considered major factors in a determination.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Eusebius promoting the "noble lie" is of import since so many things came from his hand - and the TF in particular. Don't you think it important that he is the first reference? And what he was using it for? I do.

Obviously I will consider the arguments for the role of Eusebius. (How can I do otherwise? They are already in the essay linked in the original post.) Ken Olson has already put me in contact with some information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Every critical researcher knows to evaluate his source, whether secular or not. Many current examples of fraud in biblical or religious genre are motivated by financial profit. There are also some motivated by power and adulation.

There is a risk or cost of incorporating ancillary evidence. But there is also a risk or cost of not doing so.

The risk of not incorporating the long history of religious interpolations, fabrications, persecutions, and etc. outweighs the risk of including it. IMHO.

Then help me out! Please submit your examples (and any evidence) of other interpolations into the classics. This is something I want to learn more about, even for its own sake.

best,
Peter Kirby

Amaleq13 · 03-19-2005, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

But we don't see a similar pro-Christ intrusion into Philo (who doesn't mention Christ), Tacitus (where the mention is not positive of Christ), Justus of Tiberias (who is noted by Photius), or several other classical authors.

Isn't the significant difference between these men and Josephus exactly why Eusebius and other leading Christians felt it was important to highlight the alleged reference (ie he is a famous Jewish author of a respected history)?

Peter Kirby · 03-19-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

Isn't the significant difference between these men and Josephus exactly why Eusebius and other leading Christians felt it was important to highlight the alleged reference (ie he is a famous Jewish author of a respected history)?

It could be. How would you support that?

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 03-19-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

. . .
Then help me out! Please submit your examples (and any evidence) of other interpolations into the classics. This is something I want to learn more about, even for its own sake.

best,
Peter Kirby

From my review of Interpolations in the Pauline Epistles

Quote:

Chapter 1 : The A Priori Probability of Interpolations.

Interpolations were well known in a wide diversity of documents in the ancient world, and were not necessarily thought of as forgery. Educated people knew that there had been changes to most ancient poets and believed that it was possible for critics to recover the original text; Zenodatus, the first head of the library in Alexandria in the 3rd c. BCE was a famous textual critic, known for his ability to ferret out interpolations in the text of Homer, based on four criteria 1) a break in continuity 2) lack of art 3) errors about ancient events, and 4) stylistic differences. Interpolations have been detected in many other classical authors including, most relevant here, letters of philosophers (e.g. Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Seneca), especially letters of exhortation meant to guide and mold the character of disciples - the classical form most analogous to Paul's letters.

Find a copy of the book in your library and look at the notes for Chapter 1. In particular, check out Robert Grant, The Letter and the Spirit, (although it looks like it is hard to find), Karl Mauer, Interpolation in Thucydides (look for that in your library) and George Melville Bolling, The External Evidence for Interpolation in Homer.

Amaleq13 · 03-19-2005, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

It could be. How would you support that?

At least one of them makes that statement before citing the reference. Something to the effect of "Even your own historian..."

I'll look up the specific reference when I get back from spring break.

Peter Kirby · 03-19-2005, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

At least one of them makes that statement before citing the reference. Something to the effect of "Even your own historian..."

I'll look up the specific reference when I get back from spring break.

That would probably be Eusebius, H.E. 1.11.9, "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?"

Eusebius refers to acts created with the approval of the emperor Maximinus (book 9, chapter 5).

The value that I see for the case of Josephus is that he is a non-Christian and that he covers the period in question as a historian.

Philo is also Jewish, but he doesn't cover the period in a historical capacity, so finding the right point of entry for a passage on Jesus would require more creativity. Yet there are others who speak about the time period, Justus of Tiberias and Tacitus, who do not have an interpolation with specifically Christian content.

What does this show? Only that interpolations into these authors did not necessarily follow from the fact that those who preserved them were Christians. Which is not to say that an interpolation could never have happened (most, indeed, think it has been done in Ant. 18.3.3, whether in a lesser or greater degree). Which is to say that each case can be considered on its own merit, without an overriding assumption of inauthenticity for any mention of Jesus in antiquity, or a too facile acceptance on the other hand.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 03-19-2005, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

But we don't see a similar pro-Christ intrusion into Philo (who doesn't mention Christ), Tacitus (where the mention is not positive of Christ), Justus of Tiberias (who is noted by Photius), or several other classical authors. So the desire of winning converts did not lead Christians to insert testimonies to particularly Christian beliefs into non-Christian authors, except in this case of Josephus. Thus, it isn't a foregone conclusion that a classical author would be so interpolated if preserved. Further, the Testimonium, if one looks at its history of reception, has been much more prominent and important in the modern centuries than in ancient and medieval times.

I do not have Steve Mason's newest edition of Josephus and the New Testament, but in the first edition he notes that Josephus' work survived because the early church adopted it, and that they adopted it largely because it filled in the historical background of the gospels and because its description of the destruction of Jerusalem was taken as a commentary on God's punishment of the Jews for rejecting Jesus.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Testimonium has been more prominent and important in the modern centuries than in ancient and medieval times. Early Christians assumed that the gospel stories were historical (at least the orthodox did) and had no need of confirmation from a Jewish historian. In modern times, scholars have recognized the problems of treating the gospels as historical, and have looked for other sources of history for Jesus; and the idea that the destruction of Jerusalem was God's punishment of the Jews is (thankfully) somewhat out of favor.

Peter Kirby · 03-19-2005, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that the Testimonium has been more prominent and important in the modern centuries than in ancient and medieval times. Early Christians assumed that the gospel stories were historical (at least the orthodox did) and had no need of confirmation from a Jewish historian. In modern times, scholars have recognized the problems of treating the gospels as historical, and have looked for other sources of history for Jesus

Part of what I mean finds expression in what you write above. The Testimonium has been the subject of extensive and searching inquiry since the sixteenth century, with the rise of critical historiography. The church fathers in general indeed did not find the Testimonium as of great importance: writers such as Photius don't quote it, only Eusebius quotes it more than once, and comments on the passage are quite brief. The desire for outside vectors on Jesus, as you suggest, is one reason for the interest in the Testimonium; another is a love for a good philological puzzle, and the Testimonium surely is such. Today it draws the attention of the general public in the way that few other passages in the classics do, and somewhat unfortunately (and I'm not exempt from this) can get more attention than all the rest of Josephus together. This is what I mean.

best,
Peter Kirby

S.C.Carlson · 03-19-2005, 09:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

The church fathers in general indeed did not find the Testimonium as of great importance: writers such as Photius don't quote it, only Eusebius quotes it more than once, and comments on the passage are quite brief.

That's about right. The Testimonium has been quoted about a dozen times (see list on Christian Origins conveniently collected by David Hindley). Most of those in my view were quoted directly from Eusebius's Church History or from another floating excerpt ultimately based on the Church History.

andrewcriddle · 03-20-2005, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Kirby

That would probably be Eusebius, H.E. 1.11.9, "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?"

Eusebius refers to acts created with the approval of the emperor Maximinus (book 9, chapter 5).

Alice Whealey argues in 'Josephus on Jesus' that this quote should be taken together with the slightly earlier reference (HE 1.9) to Josephus and the forged 'Acts'

Quote:

1 The historian already mentioned agrees with the evangelist in regard to the fact that Archelaus succeeded to the government after Herod. He records the manner in which he received the kingdom of the Jews by the will of his father Herod and by the decree of Caesar Augustus, and how, after he had reigned ten years, he lost his kingdom, and his brothers Philip and Herod the younger, with Lysanias, still ruled their own tetrarchies. The same writer, in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities, says that about the twelfth year of the reign of Tiberius, who had succeeded to the empire after Augustus had ruled fifty-seven years, Pontius Pilate was entrusted with the government of Judea, and that he remained there ten full years, almost until the death of Tiberius. 2 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 3 For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that Pilate was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that Pilate was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.

Alice Whealey suggests that Josephus is being used here for two pieces of information, a/ that Pilate became Governor of Judea in 26 CE b/ that Jesus was executed by Pilate, which put together, contradict the chronology of the 'Acts' and confirm (more or less) that of the Gospels.

Andrew Criddle

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.