Freethought & Rationalism Archive

andrewcriddle · 09-21-2011, 12:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

Thanks Andrew.

Google won't give me that page following Whealey's explanation, so I"m not sure if I am seeing it all, but Whealey says that we know that in the Theophania Eusebius recycled material from the earlier DE 'without significant revision'. That would seem to the the issue: did he revise that part? There is no earlier reference to the TF to point to, and while the DE is more positive, the Theophania is more Josephan. Since the TF was so important to Eusebius, he 'could have' been motivated to change it, and it alone, in the recycled material.

Hi Ted

On the question of the relation between the TF in the DE and in the Church History; the DE version is generally regarded as earlier. However, IMHO this is doubtful. Although the final edition of the Church History is later than the DE the TF was in all probability in the earlier edition of the History published c 314 CE. If so then this is likely to be earlier than the DE which was probably written somewhen between 314 and 318 CE.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley · 09-21-2011, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...............................................
[Ken Olson's article]

Quote:

I will comment on a few of the differences between the two versions of the _Testimonium_.

hHDONHi DECOMENWN, "receive with pleasure," replaces SEBOMENWN, "revere" (or "revering"), and PRWTWN ANDRWN, "first men," replaces ARCONTWN, "rulers." Both hHDONHi DECOMENWN and PRWTWN ANDRWN are phrases found in Josephus for which I have been unable to find other parallels in Eusebius' writings. Are they signs of an authentic Josephan substratum lying beneath our present _Testimonium_?

I do not think so. For the reasons given above, it would be difficult to argue that our version of the _Testimonium_ does not show Eusebian influence. Further, the Eusebian version of the passage was originally composed for the _Demonstratio_, not the _Historia_. The _Demonstratio_ is the earlier text, and the _Testimonium_ is an encapsulation of arguments found in it that receive relatively little attention in the _Historia_. In particular, the main argument of D.E. 3.5, that the disciples continued affection for Jesus after his death is proof of his and their good character, is missing from the _Historia_. This means that Eusebius added the two Josephan phrases to his own version of the _Testimonium_. But if Eusebius is capable of isolating these two phrases in Josephus and adding them to his work, there is no special reason to believe he took them from a passage about Jesus. The phrases themselves have no necessary connection with Jesus and could have been taken from elsewhere in Josephus writings ( e.g., hHDONHi DECASQAI from A.J. 18.59). These two phrases are not a sufficient basis on which to infer an authentic Josephan version of the _Testimonium_.

Hi Ted
Alice Whealey argues, in the very interesting article you referenced earlier, that SEBOMENWN in the DE is probably not what Eusebius wrote but a copyist's correction. Apparently the Syriac Theophania goes back to a Greek hHDONHi DECOMENWN and the Theophania here is following the DE.

Andrew Criddle

I've been fiddling with the various sources and translations, and can compare the TF as we have it in Josephus Ant. 18 with the various versions of it in the works of Eusebius:

Flavius Josephus ben Matthias, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 (63-64) ca 95 CE.	Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstration of the Gospel 3.5.104b-106 (started ca 313, completed later).	Eusebius of Caesarea, History of the Church 1.11.7-8 (ca. 323-324 CE). ET of Greek.	Eusebius of Caesarea, Theophany 5.43b-44.
	104b And nothing of any kind {prevents us} from making use of the testimony of Josephus from among the Hebrews, who in the eighteenth [book] of the Antiquity of the Jews, while reporting the things about the times of Pilate, makes mention of our savior in these [words]:	7 After going through these things concerning John, he [Josephus] also makes mention of our savior in the same record of the historian [Antiquities] as follows:	43b There is nevertheless nothing to prohibit our availing ourselves even the more abundantly of the Hebrew witness Josephus, who in the eighteenth book of his Antiquities of the Jews, writing the things that belonged to the times of Pilate, commemorates our savior in these words:
a) 63 And there is about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is necessary to say that he is a man;	a) 105 And there is about that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is necessary to say that he is a man;	a) 7 … And there is about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is necessary to say that he is a man;	a) 44 At that time there was a wise man named Jesus, if it be fitting to call him a man;
b) for he was a doer of miraculous works, a teacher of men who receive true things with pleasure,	b) for he was a doer of miraculous works, a teacher of men who revere true things,	b) for he was a doer of miraculous works, a teacher of men who receive true things with pleasure,	b) for he was the worker of wonderful deeds and a teacher of men, of those who in truth accept grace,
c) and many Jews, and also many of the Greek element, he led to himself;	c) and many of the Jewish element, and also many of the Greek element, he led to himself;	c) and many of the Jews, and also many from the Greek element, he led to himself;	c) and he brought together many of the Jews and many of the pagans;
d) this man was the Christ.	d) this man was the Christ.	d) this man was the Christ.	d) and he was the messiah.
e) 64 And, when on the accusation of the first men among us Pilate had condemned him to a cross,	e) And, when on the accusation of the rulers among us Pilate had condemned him to a cross,	e) 8 And, when on the accusation of the first men among us Pilate had condemned him to a cross,	e) And when, according to the example of the chief principal men among ourselves, Pilate put a cross on his head,
f) those who had first loved him did not cease; for he appeared to them on the third day living again,	f) those who had first loved him did not cease; 106 for he appeared to them on the third day living again,	f) those who had first loved him did not cease; for he appeared to them on the third day living again,	f) those who formerly loved him were not silent; for he appeared to them on the third day alive,
g) the divine prophets having said both these things and myriads of other wonders concerning him.	g) the divine prophets having said both these things and myriads of other things concerning him,	g) the divine prophets having said both these things and myriads of other wonders concerning him.	g) the divine prophets having said this and many other things concerning him.
h) And even until now the tribe of Christians, named from this man, has not been lacking.	h) whence even until now the tribe of Christians, from this man, has not been lacking.	h) And even until now the tribe of Christians, named from this man, has not been lacking.	h) From then until now the sect of the Christians has not been wanting.

Flavius Josephus ben Matthias, Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 (63-64) ca 95 CE.	Eusebius of Caesarea, Demonstration of the Gospel 3.5.104b-106 (started ca 313, completed later).	Eusebius of Caesarea, Theophany 5.43b-44. Preserved in Syriac only	Eusebius of Caesarea, History of the Church 1.11.7-8 (ca. 323-324 CE). ET of Greek.
a) 63 Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή•	a) 105 Γίνεται δὲ κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή•	a) 44 At that time there was a wise man named Jesus, if it be fitting to call him a man;	a) Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ, εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή•
b) ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,	b) ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τἀληθῆ σεβομένων,	b) for he was the worker of wonderful deeds and a teacher of men, of those who in truth accept grace,	b) ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής, διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,
c) καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο•	c) καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τοῦ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο•	c) and he brought together many of the Jews and many of the pagans;	c) καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο•
d) ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.	d) ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.	d) and he was the messiah.	d) ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.
e) 64 καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,	e) καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀρχόντων σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,	e) And when, according to the example of the chief principal men among ourselves, Pilate put a cross on his head,	e) 8 καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,
f) οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες• ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,	f) οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες• 106 ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,	f) those who formerly loved him were not silent; for he appeared to them on the third day alive,	f) οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες• ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,
g) τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων.	g) τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων,	g) the divine prophets having said this and many other things concerning him.	g) τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων.
h) εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.	h) ὅθεν εἰς ἔτι νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦδε τῶν Χριστιανῶν οὐκ ἐπέλ{ε}ιπεν τὸ φῦλον.	h) From then until now the sect of the Christians has not been wanting.	h) εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.

According to the article you cited, Alice Whealey says the Syriac (ms is securely dated to 411 CE) of element (b) corresponds to “receive with pleasure” i.e., “ἡδονῇ … δεχομένων” although the section of Theophany where the TF is found usually follows the Demonstration verbatim, which has "σεβομένων," so this probably means that Demonstration (12th century mss) may have a corrupted reading here.

Due to this uncertainty, I am not sure exactly how the Syriac translation of the Theophany's reading “ἡδονῇ … δεχομένων” rather than "σεβομένων" is supposed to tell us definitively whether Eusebius created it to insert into Josephus's Ant. 18 or not.

I think the key is going to be in what Origen meant when he spoke about Josephus' testimony about James.

Origen, Against Celsus 1.47b-d
b) Now he [Josephus] himself, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple, whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put Christ to death, who was a prophet, nevertheless says, being albeit against his will not far from the truth, that these disasters happened to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the just, who was a brother of Jesus called Christ, the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man most distinguished for his justice.	b) ο δ αυτος, καιτοι γε απιστων τω Ιησου ως Χριστω, ζητων την αιτιαν της των Ιεροσολυμων πτωσεως και της του ναου καθαιρεσεως, δεον αυτον ειπειν οτι η κατα του Ιησου επιβουλη τουτων αιτια γεγονε τω λαω, επει απεκτειναν τον προφητευομενον Χριστον ο δε και ωσπερ ακων ου μακραν της αληθειας γενομενος φησι ταυτα συμβεβηκεναι τοις Ιουδαιοις κατ εκδικησιν Ιακωβου του δικαιου, ος ην αδελφος Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, επειδηπερ δικαιοτατον αυτον οντα απεκτειναν.
c) [Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as because of his virtue and doctrine.]	c) [τον δε Ιακωβον τουτον ο Ιησου γνησιος μαθητης Παυλος φησιν εωρακεναι ως αδελφον του κυριου, ου τοσουτον δια το προς αιματος συγγενες η την κοινην αυτων ανατροφην οσον δια το ηθος και τον λογον.]
d) If, then, he says that it was on account of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on account of Jesus Christ? Of his divinity so many churches are witnesses, composed of those who have been convened from a flood of sins and have joined themselves to the creator, and who refer all their actions to his good pleasure.	d) ειπερ ουν δια Ιακωβον λεγει συμβεβηκεναι τοις Ιουδαιοις τα κατα την ερημωσιν της Ιερουσαλημ, πως ουχι ευλογωτερον δια Ιησουν τον Χριστον τουτο φασκειν γεγονεναι; ου της θειοτητος μαρτυρες αι τοσαυται των μεταβαλοντων απο της χυσεως των κακων εκκλησιαι και ηρτημενων του δημιουργου και παντ αναφεροντων επι την προς εκεινον αρεσκειαν.

Origin, Against Celsus 2.13

But at that time there were no armies around Jerusalem, encompassing and enclosing and besieging it; for the siege began in the reign of Nero and lasted till the government of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem on account, as Josephus says, of James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but, as the truth makes dear, really on account of Jesus the Christ of God.

Και ουδαμως τοτε ην στρατοπεδα περι την Ιερουσαλημ κυκλουντα αυτην και περιεχοντα και πολιορκουντα. τουτο γαρ ηρξατο μεν ετι Νερωνος βασιλευοντος παρετεινε δε εως της Ουεσπασιανου ηγεμονιας ου ο υιος Τιτος καθειλε την Ιερουσαλημ, ως μεν Ιωσηπος γραφει, δια Ιακωβον τον δικαιον, τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, ως δε η αληθεια παριστησι, δια Ιησουν τον Χριστον του θεου.

Origen, On Matthew 13.55
a) And this James is the one whom Paul says he saw in the epistle to the Galatians, saying: But I did not see any other of the apostles except James the brother of the Lord.	a) Ιακωβος δε εστιν ουτος ον λεγει Παυλος ιδειν εν τη προς Γαλατας επιστολη ειπων• Ετερον δε των αποστολων ουκ ειδον ει μη Ιακωβον τον αδελφον του κυριου.
b) And to so great a reputation among the people for righteousness did this James rise that Flavius Josephus, who wrote the Antiquities of the Jews in twenty books, when wishing to exhibit the cause why the people suffered so great misfortunes that even the temple was razed to the ground, said that these things happened to them in accordance with the wrath of God in consequence of the things which they had dared to do against James the brother of Jesus who is called Christ.	b) επι τοσουτον δε διελεμψεν ουτος ο Ιακωβος εν τω λαω επι δικαιοσυνη ως Φλοβιον Ιωσηπον αναγραψαντα εν εικοσι βιβλιοις την Ιουδαικην αρχαιολογιαν, την αιτιαν παραστησαι βουλομενον του τα τοσαυτα πεπονθεναι τον λαον ως και τον ναον κατασκαφηναι, ειρηκεναι κατα μηνιν θεου ταυτα αυτοις απηντηκεναι δια τα εις Ιακωβον τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου υπ αυτων τετολμημενα.
c) And the wonderful thing is that, though he did not accept Jesus as Christ, he yet gave testimony that the righteousness of James was so great;	c) και το θαυμαστον εστιν οτι, τον Ιησουν ημων ου καταδεξαμενος ειναι Χριστον, ουδεν ηττον Ιακωβω δικαιοσυνην εμαρτυρησε τοσαυτην.
d) and he says that the people thought that they had suffered these things because of James. And Jude wrote an epistle short in lines but full of the healthy words of heaven; in the preface he has said: Jude, servant of Jesus Christ, and brother of James. But concerning Joseph and Simon we have nothing to relate.	d) λεγει δε οτι και ο λαος ταυτα ενομιζε δια τον Ιακωβον πεπονθεναι. και Ιουδας εγραψεν επιστολην ολιγοστιχον μεν, πεπληρωμενην δε των της ουρανιου χαριτος ερρωμενων λογων, οστις εν τω προοιμιω ειρηκεν• Ιουδας Ιησου Χριστου δουλος, αδελφος δε Ιακωβου. περι δε Ιωσηφ και Σιμονος ημεις ουδεν ιστορησαμεν.

DCH

JoeWallack · 09-22-2011, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If you'd like to argue against Price's arguments in his absence, feel free:

JW:
So you can accept Price's conclusion all by yourself but you are not capable of accepting Price's individual arguments which he says supports his conclusion, all by yourself. Interesting.

As I've explained before, the key to Apologetics is changing the Scope. If you are looking for evidence that supports your conclusion, make the scope very Broad. If you are looking for evidence that does not support your conclusion, make the scope very Narrow.

I keep saying that the offending passage needs a minimum amount of identified forgery in order to be a candidate for a probable original base. This is a subjective determination. In order to make the comparison objective, you have to break down the details of the passage. Let's look at how Price deals with all this:

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

Quote:

In conclusion, a substantial amount of the TF is characteristically Josephus and only a few phrases are obviously Christian. Moreover, many of the phrases that are characteristically Josephan are absent from the New Testament and other early Christian literature (such as "wise man" and "leading men"), and/or are phrases or terms that Christians would likely have avoided using (such as "startling deeds," and "received the truth with pleasure"). Add in a phrase that any Christian scribe would have known was erroneous ("he gained a following among many Jews and among many of Gentile origin") and a compelling case exists that the core of the TF is authentic. Cementing the case is that the TF actually is coherent and flows better without the obvious Christian glosses.

JW:
Price's subjective conclusion is "a substantial amount of the TF is characteristically Josephus" compared to "only a few phrases are obviously Christian".

Price's related detail to support "few" is:

Quote:

The following phrases are obvious Christian glosses:

(i) if it be lawful to call him a man, and

(ii) He was the Christ. (However, the latter phrase was likely "he was thought to be the Christ" or some rough equivalent).

Then there is a passage that contains obvious Christian sentiment and characteristic Josephan language:

(i) for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.

So, in evaluating Price here the next step is to determine if Price is correct that what he identified are the only clearly forged parts of the TF (the next step is to determine the relative significance of the correctly identified forged portions). Has Price determined all the clearly forged portions. Someone, anyone Buelltmer?

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

TedM · 09-22-2011, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

If you'd like to argue against Price's arguments in his absence, feel free:

JW:
So you can accept Price's conclusion all by yourself but you are not capable of accepting Price's individual arguments which he says supports his conclusion, all by yourself. Interesting.

The intention was to discuss the pros and cons of Price's claims in the article, and not my own position, nor anyone's pet theory that doesn't interact with Price's article. You gave your pet theory on certainly linguistic phrases without even saying why you thought some were forged.

And I didn't 'accept Price's Price's conclusion. I said I lean toward accepting the partial theory over the whole cloth theory.

Quote:

I keep saying that the offending passage needs a minimum amount of identified forgery in order to be a candidate for a probable original base. This is a subjective determination. In order to make the comparison objective, you have to break down the details of the passage. Let's look at how Price deals with all this:...

JW:
Price's subjective conclusion is "a substantial amount of the TF is characteristically Josephus" compared to "only a few phrases are obviously Christian".

Price's related detail to support "few" is:

Quote:

The following phrases are obvious Christian glosses:

(i) if it be lawful to call him a man, and

(ii) He was the Christ. (However, the latter phrase was likely "he was thought to be the Christ" or some rough equivalent).

Then there is a passage that contains obvious Christian sentiment and characteristic Josephan language:

(i) for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.

So, in evaluating Price here the next step is to determine if Price is correct that what he identified are the only clearly forged parts of the TF (the next step is to determine the relative significance of the correctly identified forged portions). Has Price determined all the clearly forged portions. Someone, anyone Buelltmer?

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Yes, feel free to interact with his comments on any other passages that you say outright were forged.

andrewcriddle · 09-22-2011, 11:38 AM

For a modern attempt to sort out the chronology of Eusebius' works see this table in Constantine and Eusebius by Barnes.

Andrew Criddle

JoeWallack · 09-23-2011, 06:10 AM

JW:

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

Quote:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

JW:
Price confesses to us that the following are clearly unoriginal:

Quote:

The following phrases are obvious Christian glosses:

(i) if it be lawful to call him a man, and

(ii) He was the Christ. (However, the latter phrase was likely "he was thought to be the Christ" or some rough equivalent).

Then there is a passage that contains obvious Christian sentiment and characteristic Josephan language:

(i) for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.

JW:
The objective student should note that at this point Price's confession may already be enough to conclude that the extent of forgery in the TF is not insignificant and therefore the originality of the entire TF is in doubt. Before we continue, contra Price, properly looking at all likely Christian forgery in the TF, I want to make a side Bar and consider the tone of the TF. Broad categories of analysis have the valuable attribute of consistency. Note that the TF is full of sh commentary/interpretation of the author:

Quote:

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

JW:
All of the commentary/interpretation is that of the author's. The author does not give any commentary/interpretation of a character. This is the sign of a religious writing.

The best potential parallel in Josephus is JtB:

John the Baptist

Quote:

"Now some of the Jews thought that the destruction of Herod's army came from God, and that very justly, as a punishment of what he did against John, that was called the Baptist: for Herod slew him, who was a good man, and commanded the Jews to exercise virtue, both as to righteousness towards one another, and piety towards God, and so to come to baptism; for that the washing [with water] would be acceptable to him, if they made use of it, not in order to the putting away [or the remission] of some sins [only], but for the purification of the body; supposing still that the soul was thoroughly purified beforehand by righteousness. Now when [many] others came in crowds about him, for they were very greatly moved [or pleased] by hearing his words, Herod, who feared lest the great influence John had over the people might put it into his power and inclination to raise a rebellion, (for they seemed ready to do any thing he should advise,) thought it best, by putting him to death, to prevent any mischief he might cause, and not bring himself into difficulties, by sparing a man who might make him repent of it when it would be too late. Accordingly he was sent a prisoner, out of Herod's suspicious temper, to Macherus, the castle I before mentioned, and was there put to death. Now the Jews had an opinion that the destruction of this army was sent as a punishment upon Herod, and a mark of God's displeasure to him.[43]

JW:
We see here that Josephus is primarily giving the interpretation of the characters as opposed to his own. This is the sign of a historian.

In summary, the combination of even just the portion of the TF Price confesses is not original and the non-historical tone of the TF gives us good reason to doubt originality as a whole. But on to a proper analysis of whether there is more of the TF that is likely forged than what Price says.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

TedM · 09-29-2011, 03:05 PM

Joe, sorry for the slow reply..

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

JW:
The objective student should note that at this point Price's confession may already be enough to conclude that the extent of forgery in the TF is not insignificant and therefore the originality of the entire TF is in doubt.

no problem.

Quote:

Before we continue, contra Price, properly looking at all likely Christian forgery in the TF, I want to make a side Bar and consider the tone of the TF. Broad categories of analysis have the valuable attribute of consistency. Note that the TF is full of sh commentary/interpretation of the author:

Agree.

Quote:

JW:
The author does not give any commentary/interpretation of a character. This is the sign of a religious writing.

The best potential parallel in Josephus is JtB:

John the Baptist

He writes flatteringly about others though too, right?

JTB passage...

Quote:

JW:
We see here that Josephus is primarily giving the interpretation of the characters as opposed to his own. This is the sign of a historian.

Ok, you have established a reasonable first case for being suspicious of TF tampering. I think it would be more appropriate to compare Josephus with Josephus rather than an idea of a 'religious writing' vs a 'historian'.

Quote:

In summary, the combination of even just the portion of the TF Price confesses is not original and the non-historical tone of the TF gives us good reason to doubt originality as a whole. But on to a proper analysis of whether there is more of the TF that is likely forged than what Price says.

is your next installment still coming?

mountainman · 09-29-2011, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

For a modern attempt to sort out the chronology of Eusebius' works see this table in Constantine and Eusebius by Barnes.

Momigliano has already provided the field of ancient history with a judgement on Eusebius's reputation as a competent chronographer, and it was thumbs down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by AM

At the beginning of the fourth century Christian chronology had already passed its creative stage. What Eusebius did was to correct and to improve the work of his predecessors, among whom he relied especially on Julius Africanus (14). He corrected details which seemed to him wrong even to the extent of reducing the priority of the Biblical heroes over the pagan ones. Moses, a contemporary of Ogyges according to Julius Africanus, was made a contemporary of Kekrops with a loss of 300 years. Eusebius was not afraid of attacking St Paul’s guesses about the chronology of the Book of Judges. He freely used Jewish and anti-Christian sources such as Porphyrios. He introduced a reckoning from Abraham which allowed him to avoid the pitfalls of a chronology according to the first chapters of Genesis. He seems to have been the first to use the convenient method of presenting the chronology of the various nations in parallel columns. None of the earlier chronographers seems to have used this scheme, though it has often been attributed to Castor or to Julius Africanus. He made many mistakes, but they do not surprise us any longer. Fifty years ago Eduard Schwartz, to save Eusebius’ reputation as a competent chronographer, conjectured that the two extant representatives of the lost original of Eusebius’ Chronicon — the Latin adaptation by St Jerome and the anonymous Armenian translation — were based on an interpolated text which passed for pure Eusebius. This conjecture is perhaps unnecessary; nor are we certain that the Armenian version is closer to the original than St Jerome’s Latin translation. Both versions reflect the inevitable vagaries of Eusebius’ mind to whom chronology was something between an exact science and an instrument of propaganda.

But we recognize the shrewd and worldly adviser of the Emperor Constantine in the absence of millenarian dreams. Eusebius, and St Jerome who followed him, had an essential part in discrediting them. Of course, they did not stamp them out. Millenarian reckonings reappear in the De cursu temporum which Bishop Hilarian wrote at the end of the fourth century (15). They also played a part in the thought of Sulpicius Severus about that time(16). As we have already said, the disasters of the end of the century made a difference to dreams, as they made a difference to the other realities.

Thanks to Eusebius, chronography remained the typical form of Christian instruction in the fourth century. It showed concern with the pattern of history rather than with the detail.

Pagan and Christian Historiography in the Fourth Century A.D.
* This essay first appeared in A. Momigliano, ed.,
The Conflict Between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century,
The Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1963, pp. 79—99 (1)

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

09-22-2011, 11:38 AM	#105
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	For a modern attempt to sort out the chronology of Eusebius' works see this table in Constantine and Eusebius by Barnes. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.