Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Toto · 11-18-2004, 01:16 AM

Mod note:

An extended discussion of the existence of a historical Jesus is off topic in this thread. The topic has been discussed at length in previous threads; you may start a new one if you think there is any aspect that needs more discussion.

Vorkosigan · 11-18-2004, 04:18 AM

Carlson's Blog, a fascinating source, also presents an argument for A Pre-Eusebian Witness to the Testimonium. Scroll down the archives until you hit the last two, both are about the TF and Olsen and are very interesting. Carlson apparently stakes out a middle ground, accepting a Josephus original that Eusebius worked over. Links to Olsen's exchange with Carlson are also given.

PhilosopherJay · 11-18-2004, 09:48 AM

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for this. It is very helpful.

I note that there is a coincidence in similarity of thought in a passage just preceding Pseudo-Hegesippus's quote of the TF and Eusebius's passage just following the TF in his "Theophania."

Would this not be a fantastic coincidence if the author of Pseudo-Hegesippus had not read Eusebius's Theophania?

Quote:

They were atoning for their wickedness by their sufferings, who after crucifying Jesus according to the divine plan, later persecuted his disciples. For many Jews and even more Gentiles believed in him and were attracted by his teaching of morals and performance of works beyond human capability. Not even his death put an end to their faith and love but rather increased their devotion And so with murderous hands they brought the author of life even to death, leading him away to Pilate, who attempted to resist but was encouraged to pronounce sentence. In this however Pilate is not to be excused but the Jewish madness accumulated, for they should neither have made this judgment, of which those responsible perceived hardly anything, nor repeated this sacrilegious murder. But those to whom they should have made amends and relieved, these they sought to kill. 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.

From Eusebius's Theophania:

Quote:

" At this period then was Jesus, a wise man, if it be right to call Him a man; for He was the doer of wonderful works, and the Teacher of those men who, with pleasure, received Him in truth. And He brought together many (both) of the Jews, and many of the profane (Gentiles). And this was the Messiah (Christ). And, when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal ancient men among ourselves, laid on Him the punishment of the Cross, those who formerly loved Him were not reduced to silence. For He appeared again to them, on the third day, alive: things which, with many others, the Prophets had said respecting Him : so that from thence, and even until now, the race of the Christians has not been wanting to Him."

45. If therefore, as (this) author attests of Him, He was the doer of wonderful works, and that He made His Disciples,--not only the twelve Apostles, or the seventy Disciples, but also attached to Himself,--myriads of others both of the Jews and Gentiles; it is clear, that He possessed something excellent beyond the rest of mankind. For, How could He have otherwise attached to Himself the many, both of the Jews and Gentiles, unless He had made use of miracles and astonishing deeds, and of doctrines (till then) unknown ? The Book of the Acts of the Apostles also attests, that there were many thousands of the Jews, who were persuaded that He was that Christ of God, who had been preached of by the Prophets. It is also on record, that there was a great Church of Christ at Jerusalem; which had been collected from among the Jews, even to the times of its reduction by Hadrian. The first Bishops too who were there, are said to have been, one after another, fifteen (in number), who were Jews89; the names of whom are published to the men of that place, even until now. So that by these, every accusation against the Disciples may be undone; since, what was prior to them, and independent of their testimony, these attest of Him, (viz.), that He, the Christ of God, did by means of these wondrous works which He performed, reduce many, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, beneath His power.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I copied the passage from
http://www.christianorigins.com/citations.html

Which is an online version of an excerpt in Dissertation 1 of Whiston's Josephus.

The author whom I've referred to as Pseudo-Hegesippus is not pretending to be anyone that he is not.

It is an anonymous work which makes quite clear that it is a rewrite of Josephus written after the founding of Constantinople by Constantine.

The author comments concerning Josephus

In some of the manuscripts the author is given as Hegesippus and this is the name by which the work was known in the middle ages. Hence Pseudo-Hegesippus, but there is no attempt by the author to deceive the reader into thinking either that this is a literal Latin version of Josephus or that it is by the Hegesippus quoted by Eusebius.

I'll try and give a longer extract with the original quote in bold

(NB this is partly my own translation from the Latin. It may not be reliable in detail but I hope gives the general context)

Apart from a few extracts the work is not online.
If anyone wants I'll post the relevant section in the original Latin.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 11-18-2004, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for this. It is very helpful.

I note that there is a coincidence in similarity of thought in a passage just preceding Pseudo-Hegesippus's quote of the TF and Eusebius's passage just following the TF in his "Theophania."

Would this not be a fantastic coincidence if the author of Pseudo-Hegesippus had not read Eusebius's Theophania?

Hi Jay

I think it is probably unlikely that Pseudo-Hegesippus had read the Theophania which seems not to have been a particularly well-known work.

However this doesn't affect your main point because there is a similar passage in the better known Demonstratio Evangelica book 3

Quote:

And surely they who have set no false stamp on anything that is true in the incidents of shame and gloom, ought to be regarded as above suspicion in other accounts wherein they have attributed miracles to Him. Their evidence then may be considered sufficient about our (b) Saviour. And here it will not be inappropriate for me to make use of the evidence of the Hebrew Josephus as well, who in the eighteenth chapter of The Archaeology of the Jews, in his record of the times of Pilate, mentions our Saviour in these words: "And Jesus arises at that time, a wise man, if it is befitting to call him a man. For he was a doer of no common works, a teacher of men who reverence truth. And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the Greek race. This was Christus; and when Pilate (c) condemned him to the Cross on the information of our rulers, his first followers did not cease to revere him. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having foretold this, and very many other things about him. And from that time to this the tribe of the Christians has not failed."
If, then, even the historian's evidence shews that He attracted to Himself not only the twelve Apostles, nor the seventy disciples, but had in addition many Jews and Greeks, He must evidently have had some extraordinary power beyond that of other men. For how otherwise could (d) He have attracted many Jews and Greeks, except by wonderful miracles and unheard-of teaching? And the evidence of the Acts of the Apostles goes to shew that there were many myriads of Jews who believed Him to be the Christ of God foretold by the prophets. And history also assures us that there was a very important Christian Church in Jerusalem, composed of Jews, which existed until the siege of the city under Hadrian. The bishops, too, who stand first in the line of succession there are said to have been Jews, whose names are still remembered by the inhabitants. So that thus the whole slander against His disciples is destroyed, when by their evidence, and apart also from their evidence, it has to be confessed that many myriads of Jews and Greeks were brought under His yoke by Jesus the Christ of God through the miracles that He performed.

I've put in bold the relevant passages.

What I think is clear is that both the passages in Eusebius and the passage in Pseudo-Hegesippus are paraphrasing the TF. (Jews and Gentiles believing, wise teaching, superhuman miracles)

The question is whether they are independently paraphrasing the TF or whether Pseudo-Hegesippus is dependent on Eusebius. (Just to clarify one point the translation of the relevant bit of Pseudo-Hegesippus is from a book by Whealey so issues of my dodgy Latin thankfully don't arise.)

It's unfortunately difficult to decide one way or the other.

One possible indication that they are independent is that Eusebius (DE but similar in Theophania)

Quote:

And the evidence of the Acts of the Apostles goes to shew that there were many myriads of Jews who believed Him to be the Christ of God foretold by the prophets. And history also assures us that there was a very important Christian Church in Jerusalem, composed of Jews, which existed until the siege of the city under Hadrian. The bishops, too, who stand first in the line of succession there are said to have been Jews, whose names are still remembered by the inhabitants.

seems to want to emphasise the number of Jews becoming disciples whereas Pseudo-Hegesippus

Quote:

For many Jews and even more Gentiles believed in him

seems to want to emphasise the Gentiles compared to the Jews.
(the Latin is plerique tamen Iudaeorum gentilium plurimi crediderunt in eum)

On the whole the way Eusebius quotes the TF then paraphrases it is rather different from the way Pseudo-Hegesippus paraphrases the TF then announces a direct quote from Josephus which ends up leaving out most of the already paraphrased material. Basically Pseudo-Hegesippus is rewriting the TF while Eusebius is quoting it and then paraphrasing the quote in his subsequent argument.

So I think that although there is obviously a connection between Eusebius and Pseudo-Hegesippus here, the connection is pretty much accounted for by the underlying TF which they are paraphrasing.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay · 11-18-2004, 09:18 PM

Hi Andrew,

There is also more than a passing similarity between what PH says in his text and what Eusebius says in the History after quoting the TF.

Here is Pseudo-Hegesippus:

Quote:

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,

Here is Eusebius:

Quote:

7 After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words:186 "And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness. And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ.

8 When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross, those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him. For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him. Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day."

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?187 But let this suffice here.

In both cases the authors note that the fact that Josephus is Jewish lends credibility to the account. While Eusebius is using the fact against certain forgers of his time, Pseudo Hegessipus is using the fact against the Jews. Of course the target is different, as the forgers whom Eusebius targetted had been dead for some 50 years when PH wrote and there was no need to attack them. The similarity of the use of Josephus's Jewishness is what allows us to identify that the PH is paraphrasing Eusebius.

One may consider some of the thousands of other ways PH may have used the TF. He may have used it to wonder how Josephus knew about Jesus and why he did not convert to Judaism. He could have used it to point out how absurd it was that Josephus only devoted this short summary to Jesus, when he immediately gives three four times the space to a robber of no-account in the next paragraph. He could have used it to praise the writing style of Josephus, able to summarize the salient features of Jesus's life in such short dramatic paragraphs. Instead he uses it as a polemical point of attack against his enemies, just as Eusebius used it.

Compare this use to how Jerome uses the TF in Illustrious Men:

Quote:

Josephus,79 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."

Unlike PH and Eusebius, Jerome does not repeat the sentence about Jews and Gentiles flocking to Jesus, nor does he use the fact of Josephus's Jewishness to claim authencity for the work and to attack an opponent.

It seems to me that the case for Jerome's work being independent from Eusebius is far greater than the case for PH's independence from Eusebius. It seems to me that PH has been directly influenced by both H.E. and either demonstratio or Theophania. Jerome's writing has not been influenced by either.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Hi Jay

I think it is probably unlikely that Pseudo-Hegesippus had read the Theophania which seems not to have been a particularly well-known work.

However this doesn't affect your main point because there is a similar passage in the better known Demonstratio Evangelica book 3

I've put in bold the relevant passages.

What I think is clear is that both the passages in Eusebius and the passage in Pseudo-Hegesippus are paraphrasing the TF. (Jews and Gentiles believing, wise teaching, superhuman miracles)

The question is whether they are independently paraphrasing the TF or whether Pseudo-Hegesippus is dependent on Eusebius. (Just to clarify one point the translation of the relevant bit of Pseudo-Hegesippus is from a book by Whealey so issues of my dodgy Latin thankfully don't arise.)

It's unfortunately difficult to decide one way or the other.

One possible indication that they are independent is that Eusebius (DE but similar in Theophania)

seems to want to emphasise the number of Jews becoming disciples whereas Pseudo-Hegesippus

seems to want to emphasise the Gentiles compared to the Jews.
(the Latin is plerique tamen Iudaeorum gentilium plurimi crediderunt in eum)

On the whole the way Eusebius quotes the TF then paraphrases it is rather different from the way Pseudo-Hegesippus paraphrases the TF then announces a direct quote from Josephus which ends up leaving out most of the already paraphrased material. Basically Pseudo-Hegesippus is rewriting the TF while Eusebius is quoting it and then paraphrasing the quote in his subsequent argument.

So I think that although there is obviously a connection between Eusebius and Pseudo-Hegesippus here, the connection is pretty much accounted for by the underlying TF which they are paraphrasing.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 11-19-2004, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew,

.................................................. ..........................
Compare this use to how Jerome uses the TF in Illustrious Men:

Quote:

Josephus,79 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..............

Unlike PH and Eusebius, Jerome does not repeat the sentence about Jews and Gentiles flocking to Jesus, nor does he use the fact of Josephus's Jewishness to claim authencity for the work and to attack an opponent.

It seems to me that the case for Jerome's work being independent from Eusebius is far greater than the case for PH's independence from Eusebius. It seems to me that PH has been directly influenced by both H.E. and either demonstratio or Theophania. Jerome's writing has not been influenced by either.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay

Josephus is clearly dependent on Eusebius here

see Ecclesiastical History book 3

Quote:

After all this it is fitting that we should know something in regard to the origin and family of Josephus, who has contributed so much to the history in hand. He himself gives us information on this point in the following words: "Josephus, the son of Mattathias, a priest of Jerusalem, who himself fought against the Romans in the beginning and was compelled to be present at what happened afterward." He was the most noted of all the Jews of that day, not only among his own people, but also among the Romans, so that he was honored by the erection of a statue in Rome, and his works were deemed worthy of a place in the library. He wrote the whole of the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, and a history of the war with the Romans which took place in his time, in seven books. He himself testifies that the latter work was not only written in Greek, but that it was also translated by himself into his native tongue. He is worthy of credit here because of his truthfulness in other matters. There are extant also two other books of his which are worth reading. They treat of the antiquity of the Jews, and in them he replies to Apion the Grammarian, who had at that time written a treatise against the Jews, and also to others who had attempted to vilify the hereditary institutions of the Jewish people.
.................................................. ....................................
Another work of no little merit has been produced by the same writer, On the Supremacy of Reason, which some have called Maccabaicum, because it contains an account of the struggles of those Hebrews who contended manfully for the true religion, as is related in the books called Maccabees.

I've put in bold the parallels.

IMO we don't have anything as clear cut as this for Pseudo-Hegesippus.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay · 11-19-2004, 08:59 PM

Hi Andrew,

I am not being clear about the parallelism that I believe establishes PH's dependence on Eusebius. We cannot restrict ourselves to the simple criteria of "does X repeat Y" in order to establish dependency. If we do we shall find depedency in only 1 in 100 cases where there is true dependency. Exact copying is only one form of dependency and a rare one at that. We have to look at a variety of ways in which two texts may be interacting. For example, if I write, "zebras are pack animals and like to eat fish" and you respond with a text saying, "Despite what some people say, Zebras are solitary creatures and vegetarians," you have not copied my saying, but it is quite obvious that your text depends on my text.

In this case we find Eusebius quoting the TF and immediately saying that the fact that Josephus is a Jewish Historian discredits a group. In the case of PH, we find him saying Josephus is a Jewish Historian which descredits a group and then quoting the TF. In other words, they both use the TF in the same way. as the final sword thrust in a verbal assault on a hated enemy.
Now if one is reading Josephus, there is nothing in Josephus that would make you exerpt this passage specifically and use it to attack a group.in this way. In fact, it is quite illogical to use it this way to attack Jews. The passage would indicate the honesty and integrity of a Jewish writer and thus show that there were honest Jews in the first century, something the authorof PH, probably Ambrose, is loathe to admit. It is only because Eusebius has used the passage to attack a pagan group who created a forged work, that PH uses it in a siimilar fashion. In fact, PH should be praising the Jews for producing the TF instead of using the TF to attack Jews.
His blind hated also explains why he copies the sentence in Eusebius about the Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus and changes it to say that there were more Gentile followers.

To disprove my hypothesis, I would bring forward other writers who used the TF to attack groups. This would show that such a use of the TF was common or natural and therefore PH's later use of it in this fasion does not show a depency relationship on Eusebius. Showing similarities between passages of Josephus and Eusebius does not affect the argument I am trying to make.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Hi Jay

Josephus is clearly dependent on Eusebius here

see Ecclesiastical History book 3

I've put in bold the parallels.

IMO we don't have anything as clear cut as this for Pseudo-Hegesippus.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 11-20-2004, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Hi Jay

Josephus is clearly dependent on Eusebius here

see Ecclesiastical History book 3

I've put in bold the parallels.

IMO we don't have anything as clear cut as this for Pseudo-Hegesippus.

Andrew Criddle

Apologies for nonsense

I meant 'JEROME is clearly dependent on Eusebius here'
not 'JOSEPHUS is clearly dependent on Eusebius here'

Sorry Again

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 11-20-2004, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew,

I am not being clear about the parallelism that I believe establishes PH's dependence on Eusebius. We cannot restrict ourselves to the simple criteria of "does X repeat Y" in order to establish dependency. If we do we shall find depedency in only 1 in 100 cases where there is true dependency. Exact copying is only one form of dependency and a rare one at that. We have to look at a variety of ways in which two texts may be interacting. For example, if I write, "zebras are pack animals and like to eat fish" and you respond with a text saying, "Despite what some people say, Zebras are solitary creatures and vegetarians," you have not copied my saying, but it is quite obvious that your text depends on my text.

In this case we find Eusebius quoting the TF and immediately saying that the fact that Josephus is a Jewish Historian discredits a group. In the case of PH, we find him saying Josephus is a Jewish Historian which descredits a group and then quoting the TF. In other words, they both use the TF in the same way. as the final sword thrust in a verbal assault on a hated enemy.
Now if one is reading Josephus, there is nothing in Josephus that would make you exerpt this passage specifically and use it to attack a group.in this way. In fact, it is quite illogical to use it this way to attack Jews. The passage would indicate the honesty and integrity of a Jewish writer and thus show that there were honest Jews in the first century, something the authorof PH, probably Ambrose, is loathe to admit. It is only because Eusebius has used the passage to attack a pagan group who created a forged work, that PH uses it in a siimilar fashion. In fact, PH should be praising the Jews for producing the TF instead of using the TF to attack Jews.
His blind hated also explains why he copies the sentence in Eusebius about the Jewish and Gentile followers of Jesus and changes it to say that there were more Gentile followers.

To disprove my hypothesis, I would bring forward other writers who used the TF to attack groups. This would show that such a use of the TF was common or natural and therefore PH's later use of it in this fasion does not show a depency relationship on Eusebius. Showing similarities between passages of Josephus and Eusebius does not affect the argument I am trying to make.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

Hi Jay

I didn't mean to say there were similarities between JOSEPHUS and Eusebius (see apology in other post) I meant to say there were similarities between JEROME and Eusebius making direct dependence of Jerome on Eusebius almost certain here in a way that is not paralled by Pseudo-Hegesippus.

Using quotations polemically is (regrettably) common in Christian works of this period I'm not sure how much weight can be placed on it as evidence of dependence.

One problem with direct dependence on Eusebius here is that Pseudo-Hegesippus seems to be dependent on a version of the TF without 'he was the Christ' compared to the form of the TF in our texts of Eusebius.
(Maybe the underlying form lacked the clause altogether maybe it had 'he was the so-called Christ' or something similar).

It is possible that Pseudo-Hegesippus is deliberately distorting the TF here as part of his anti-Jewish agenda but variation in this clause is widespread (Jerome and whatever Syriac tradition underlies Michael the Syrian and Agapius, not sources likely to have been influenced by Pseudo-Hegesippus Jerome because the timescale is too tight and the Syriac source for Michael and Agapius because of the language difference.)

Another possibility is that the original text of Eusebius in all three texts had something like 'he was called Christ' and later copyists 'corrected' it. Whealey has seriously suggested this but IMHO it is unlikely.

If the original text of Eusebius did read 'he was the Christ' without qualification then this causes problems for the direct usage of Eusebius by Pseudo-Hegesippus here.

Andrew Criddle

(I will be away from my computer till late Monday so won't be posting again till then.)

JoeWallack · 11-20-2004, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Most of the early witnesses to the TF are clearly (Jerome and Rufinus) or probably influenced by Eusebius of Caesarea however only one witness clearly referring to the TF and unlikely to have been influenced by Eusebius is sufficient to make a Eusebian creation of the TF unlikely.

JW:
"one witness clearly referring to the TF and unlikely to have been influenced by Eusebius". "Clearly" and "unlikely" is going to be difficult here without a discussion of the extant manuscripts. Obviously an original manuscript is much better evidence than a 16th century Armenian copy found in Luther's outhouse. Other posters here have implied that this is an issue but I don't see anyone stating it explicitly. Ignoring/inadequate consideration of extant manuscript evidence is a common Assumption of Christianity since it creates Doubt and Skeptics should always try to avoid picking up Christian assumptions.

For instance, on Bede's site there is a simliar discussion:

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

Which has no mention of extant manuscript evidence. Such an article would be rejected out of hand of God by any serious journal. Predictably this author also overstates evidence and makes conclusions not supported by the evidence. He also did not know that Omar was a stoolie so I say his judgment stinks and I wonder what other mistakes he made.

Anyway, this site:

http://www.bookreviews.org/pdf/3094_3379.pdf

claims that the earliest extant manuscript is from the sixth century while the original is commonly dated 430. We still need an analysis of how this manuscript compares to later ones regarding TF.

We have the following good reasons to doubt that HP clearly referred to TF independent of E:

1) HP writes well after E (which has been the main objection here).

2) Time. Time creates uncertainty as to dating (HP original, earliest extant HP and lost/destroyed manuscript bridges).

3) Motive and Opportunity of Christianity to support Christian assertions and hide/destroy the evidence. Specifically, edit HP to make it conform to E. Biased evidence always needs to be discounted. For a religion such as Christianity where Winning (converts) is not just everything, it's the Only thing, we need a BaalMart typology discount.

4) Extant manuscript History. With a sixth century extant and 5th century original we have doubt as to what was original. We have added doubt as this was when Christianity was gaining control (probably not a coincidence) and it's suspicious that the original could not be preserved but a copy a century later could be for 1,500 years.

Joseph

OPPORTUNITY, n.
A favorable occasion for grasping a disappointment.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://hometown.aol.com/abdulreis/myhomepage/index.html

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

11-18-2004, 01:16 AM	#51
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	Mod note: An extended discussion of the existence of a historical Jesus is off topic in this thread. The topic has been discussed at length in previous threads; you may start a new one if you think there is any aspect that needs more discussion.

11-18-2004, 04:18 AM	#52
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	Carlson's Blog, a fascinating source, also presents an argument for A Pre-Eusebian Witness to the Testimonium. Scroll down the archives until you hit the last two, both are about the TF and Olsen and are very interesting. Carlson apparently stakes out a middle ground, accepting a Josephus original that Eusebius worked over. Links to Olsen's exchange with Carlson are also given.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.