Layman

For the record,

According to the Penguin Classic's Church History, translated by G.A. Williamson, it is "This was the Christ." Ditto Whiston. And to keep the clarity going, this is for the citation to the Testimonium Flaviniam, not the James refernce of course.

spin

I have little active experience with Latin and I have no dictionary with me, but

1) Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 1[*]
deals with material in Contra Appion

2) Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 6[*]
talks about the Maccabaeans

3) Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 10[*]
mentions the 18th book (presumably Josephus AJ), referring to the death of the lord christ, that John the baptist was a true prophet and the killing of the apostle James in Jerusalem

4) Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 14[*]
talks of Jesus, a wise man, if "man" you could say

5) Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 15[*]
talks of a wonderful doer of works and a doctor (ie teacher) who had relations (which I don't understand) with the Jews and the gentiles, who had [followers]? and was believed to be the christ

6) Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 18[*]
talks of our envy and Pilate crucifying him

7) Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 20[*]
talks of him appearing on the third day

8) Cl. 0616 , cap. : 14, pag. : 16, linea : 25[*]
mentions Justus of Tiberias

9) Cl. 0616 , cap. : 14, pag. : 16, linea : 27[*]
is not enough to get any sense, talks of Josephus [making known]? lies about it (whatever)

10) Cl. 0616 , cap. : 14, pag. : 16, linea : 27[*]
mentions something written agreeing with Josephus


Where are all those late antiquity scholars when you need them?


spin

Layman

Further, Olson himself is clear that our current texts ("he was the Christ") are the same as Eusebius' Church History version. ("The version of the Testimonium found in our texts of the Antiquities of the Jews is the Eusebian version, and...."). It used to be available online here, but now seems to be limited to members of the Jesus Mysterises list:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/JesusM...Testimonium%22

Peter Kirby

I wrongly assumed that people knew where to find the English translation of Jerome's work.

Lives of Illustrious Men

Chapter XIII.

Josephus, the son of Matthias, priest of Jerusalem, taken prisoner by Vespasian and his son Titus, was banished. Coming to Rome he presented to the emperors, father and son, seven books On the captivity of the Jews, which were deposited in the public library and, on account of his genius, was found worthy of a statue at Rome. He wrote also twenty books of Antiquities, from the beginning of the world until the fourteenth year of Domitian Caesar, and two of Antiquities against Appion, the grammarian of Alexandria who, under Caligula, sent as legate on the part of the Gentiles against Philo, wrote also a book containing a vituperation of the Jewish nation. Another book of his entitled, On all ruling wisdom, in which the martyr deaths of the Maccabeans are related is highly esteemed. In the eighth book of his Antiquities he most openly acknowledges that Christ was slain by the Pharisees on account of the greatness of his miracles, that John the Baptist was truly a prophet, and that Jerusalem was destroyed because of the murder of James the apostle. He wrote also concerning the Lord after this fashion: "In this same time was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be lawful to call him man. For he was a worker of wonderful miracles, and a teacher of those who freely receive the truth. He had very many adherents also, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and was believed to be Christ, and when through the envy of our chief men Pilate had crucified him, nevertheless those who had loved him at first continued to the end, for he appeared to them the third day alive. Many things, both these and other wonderful things are in the songs of the prophets who prophesied concerning him and the sect of Christians, so named from Him, exists to the present day."

Chapter XIV.

Justus of Tiberias of the province Galilee, also attempted to write a History of Jewish affairs and certain brief Commentaries on the Scriptures but Josephus convicts him of falsehood. It is known that he wrote at the same time as Josephus himself.

best,
Peter Kirby

rlogan

Spin, thank you. Your skills are better here than on that stupid "Bible is crap" thread.

Peter, thank you.

So there is one difference in there that can't be explained by a translation choice - the ten thousand things the prophets foretold of him.

one might excuse the difference in "believed to be" vs. "was" the Christ. But a number cannot be interpreted any other way but with a number.



So now what the hell are we going to do with this? Jerome appears to have a different translation than the rather more obscene "ten thousand" prophesy version of Eusebius.

Bernard Muller

rlogan:
Or maybe Jerome made some "corrections" when he translated the TF in Latin?

After Eusebius, Christian authors came with different somewhat "corrected" (against blatant Christian origin) versions of the TF:

About 360: Ambrose, or Hegesippus de Excid. Urb. Hierosolym, lib. ii. cap. 12
The quotation of the (greatly modified) TF is introduced and narrated as:
"The Jews themselves also bear witness to Christ, as appears by Josephus, the writer of their history, who says thus:
"That there was at the time a wise man, if 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, and has penetrated among all sort of men; nor does there remain any nation in the Roman world which continues strangers to his religion."
Then the author commented:
"If the Jews do not believe us, let them at least believed their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man ... he spoke, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought he was 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, ..."
Before the TF quotation, our author said about Josephus:
"an author not to be rejected, when he writes against himself"

Arabic version first reported by a 10th century Melkite bishop, Agapius, in his book 'Book of the Title':
"Similarly Josephus [Yusifus], the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written in the governance of the Jews:
At that time there was a wise man called Jesus. His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous [or: his learning/knowledge was outstanding]. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations become his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.
But whose who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.""
Shlomo Pines 10-11, 16, from J.D. Crossan, 'The Historical Jesus'

From my page on Testimonium Flavianum

Best regards, Bernard

rlogan

Yes, this is a possibility. That eusebius version is just flagrant.

Right. I'm pretty well convinced this is a paraphrase. Discussed earlier.

So here is where I land on this after the great circle of alternate TF's:

Eusebius' version is still first, and is flagrantly apologetic. He is a solid candidate for the nefarious interpolator.

spin

We can't just let this subject drop, because it will come up again unresilved and we'll have to go back and pick up on the debate foundations that have come out in this thread.

We still need to look at the original texts of the various sources including Eusebius and Origen and compare them with the TF and the James passage (there does seem to be some cross fertilization of terminology in the debate, with "called christ" in the james passage and "he was the christ" in the TF). Although I see Origen as commenting on the James passage and clarifying for his readership who this James was by calling him the brother of the Lord Jesus, I can see Eusebius doing what our xian friends do with it, but being disappointed not to find it in Josephus, putting it there. This is mere hypothesis, but I don't see in the Origen material him doing anything other than paraphrasing Josephus adding in explanatory parentheses.


spin

Dominus Paradoxum

That sounds to me like it could be authentic, or at least closer to the authentic version (assuming there was one) than ours.

P.S.
W00t, 500th post.

rlogan

OK, baby steps. I'll tackle a little bit of it. There seems to be uncertainty about the original language of at least one of the manuscripts Layman referred to for Eusebius. Did he write the originals in Greek or in Syriac?

That would be important in that two translations leave us with plenty of room for the different versions Layman provides, as the translations are by different individuals.


Here is the "scoup" on the Theophania.

Greek (lost) -> Syriac -> English

S. LEE, Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea on the Theophania or Divine Manifestation of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, translated into English with notes from an ancient Syriac version of the Greek original now lost, Cambridge: Duncan and Malcolm, University Press (1843).

W. WRIGHT, The Encomium of the Martyrs: Journal of Sacred Literature, 4th series vol. 5 (1864), pp.403-408 (Syriac text with introduction by B.H.COWPER); 4th series vol. 6 (1864-5), pp.129-133 (English translation and introduction by B.H.COWPER).

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/ma...theophania.htm


For the "Proof of Christianity", I think that is Greek -> English I am surmizing this as opposed to seing it confirmed.

The earliest MS. of the Demonstratio is the Codex known as the Medicean or "Parisinus 469," of the twelfth century...
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eu...e_02_intro.htm



The citation from Church History needs to be clarified further. Apparently there were two versons of this work:

"On the Martyrs of Palestine. There are two distinct forms of this work, both drawn up by Eusebius. The longer is only extant in a Syriac version which was first edited and translated by Cureton in 1861. The shorter form is found in most MSS. (not, however, in the best) of the Church History, sometimes at the end of the last book, generally between books VIII and IX, also in the middle of book VIII. The existence of the same work in two different forms raises a number of curious literary problems. There is, of course, the question of priority"


If what Layman gave us actually came from the Martyrs of Palestine then this translation was:

Greek (lost) ?? -> Syriac -> English

"S. E. Assemani goes so far as to express his conviction that this history of the sufferings of the martyrs in Palestine was originally composed in Syriac, a language with which Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea, was necessarily well acquainted, |vi as being the vernacular speech of his own country and diocese.18 It is not at all improbable that Eusebius might made have use of the Syriac for ordinary purposes, or, indeed, as a safer deposit for any memoranda which he might wish to commit to writing than the Greek, during the time that the persecution continued. Could this inference of S. E. Assemani be established, it would give still additional interest and value to the work which I now publish. I must, however, own that I cannot admit the supposition that this work was originally written in the Syriac language. Indeed, it seems to me to be sufficiently disproved by the fact, that the Syriac copy of such of the Acts of Martyrs in Palestine as have been published by S. E. Assemani, while it agrees completely in substance with this, is evidently a translation by another hand; and that the variation and errors which occur in some of the proper names are of such a kind as could only have arisen from confounding two similar Greek letters of the writing at that period ;19 and further, there are some obscure passages in this Syriac, which obviously seem to be the result of a translator not fully apprehending the meaning of the Greek passage before him.20"


From MSS discussion in:
http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/eusebius_martyrs.htm