Toto

TedM - I've done more than read Layman / Chris Price's stuff. I've read Steve Mason, his source. I recommend that. Mason goes through all of the arguments in favor of a partial interpolation, then goes through the arguments against, and comes to no decision. Price has cherry picked one side of Mason's discussion.

But Price quoting Mason does agree that "tribe of Christians" is a typically Eusebian phrase. Mason did not consider the possibility that Eusebius was the interpolator in that section.

aa5874

What is most amazing is that virtually everything that Origen claimed about Josephus with respect to Jesus, John the Baptist and James cannot be found or contradicted.

1. Origen claimed Josephus did NOT accept or believe Jesus was the Christ---not found.

2. Origen claimed Josephus wrote that the calamities of the Jews were due to James--not found.

3. Origen claimed John Baptized for the Remission of Sins--contradicted

Stringbean

It is here though I cannot vouch for the validity of this.

http://www.textexcavation.com/anaorigjos.html

Not trying to discredit you just pointing it out.

TedM

I have read the arguments against that Price addresses. Time permitting I can see if Mason has more to say on it.

It would be significant if Eusebius refers to the tribe of Christians throughout his works--dozens of times, as it would show it to be pet phrase he liked (though still could have come from Josephus). If it is only a few times, the fact that no other Christian prior to Eusebius seems to have used the phrase should be taken into account, along with the not inconsistent usage of 'tribe' by Josephus. One should ask why Eusebius would refer to the 'tribe of Christians' at all, as it seems a strange term to apply to his fellow believers. Perhaps his other references (are they actually to Christians?) shed some light on that question.

TedM

The idea that 'tribe of Christians' came from Eusebius appears to be firmly 'shot down' here:

http://books.google.com/books?id=JRl...=tribe&f=false

Eusebius apparently did NOT use the phrase 'tribe of Christians' to refer to Christians, except as a quotation from Tertullian's work Apologeticum.

Once again, common sense wins out. Christian's in the 4th century would not have referred to themselves as a 'tribe'.

This then is not a Eusebian phrase, and it is appropriate for Price to use it as an argument against whole cloth Eusebian interpolation.

aa5874

Where in the writings of Josephus do we find what Origen claimed?

The Claims of Origen are either NOT found or are contradicted.

1. Origen claimed "the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple" was due to James.

This is CONTRADICTED by "Wars of the Jews"

In "Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4 Josephus claimed the calamities of the Jews and the Fall of the Temple was because a Temple was BUILT LIKE A SQUARE.

"Wars of the Jews" 6.5.4 Where did Origen get his information about what Josephus wrote about the cause of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple?

It does NOT appear to be from the works of Josephus.

Stringbean

You got a point had not considered the above thanks.

Toto

So it was used by Christians before Eusebius. And Eusebius did use the term.

But you can argue this both ways. Josephus uses the term in a more neutral sense; some Christians use the term negatively. Why would an interpolator not pick up the term and use it as Josephus' term?

Except that they did.

Price can use any argument he wants to.

The crux is that the passage shows clear signs of interpolation, whether or not it can be established that Eusebius was the forger. The claim that anyone can recover the original text - and establish that it contained a neutral report of Jesus - is highly suspect, the product of wishful thinking.

TedM

The same source says that Justin Martyr defended Christianity from being described as a 'tribe'. This provides a precedent: The word 'tribe' was used for Christians early on, and Christians did not like the designation. The quotation Eusebius used is apparently lost text but clearly a quotation, according to the source I gave you. It is likely that Tertullian did not like this designation either, and was arguing against it in his apology, which of course was written to defend those who criticized Christians.

And, last but not least, Eusebius himself, according to this source, used a different word to refer to Christians, and where he DID use the word for 'tribe' it was very negatively, included a description of a 'tribe of demons'.

The most logical conclusion is that the term 'tribe of Christians' was neither an interpolation of Eusebius, nor of ANY Christian at all. This provides clearer support for it being original to Josephus than what I had prior to your declaration that it must have been written by Eusebius. Thank you.



Now you are back to the 'clever interpolator', who either was also so stupid that he added in Christian terms--contrary to manuscript evidence--or who was then followed by at least one more interpolator--the very idea you said you found bizarre.


This is the same way I felt up until a few months ago. It is a lazy response that is more the product of skepticism than rationalism. A major point of Price's article was not to show that Eusebius was or was not the forger, but that the evidence is strongly against the idea of 'whole-cloth' interpolation. This leaves us with a pre-existing text that is quite Josephan in nature. Whether it can be exactly recovered or not is not very relevant. What is relevant is whether it is reasonable to conclude that a Josephus-like text is the product of a clever interpolation. I would lean toward saying that it is not reasonble. Then the issue becomes one of how strong the evidence is that the text--Josephan style or not--was added later. If it is strong, then we can reasonably applaud the 'clever interpolator'. If it is not, then we should be more willing to accept it at face value for what it looks like: A contemporary, historical witness to Jesus' existence from a credible source.

JoeWallack

JW:
Price has argued before on these unholy Boards as "Layman" and did not do very well so he's not going to be considered an authority by the standards of this Forum. It's also easy to point out parallels between his argument and Apologetic arguments:

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

JW:
Note that he starts with his conclusion. This would be an unknown order in a professional discipline. It's also difficult to even find what he asserts is the significance of the issue. Late in the article he writes:

JW:
Price seems to be saying that the primary significance of the issue is support for HJ. In order to have any type of support for HJ though the portion of the TF that is clearly forged would have to be insignificant. Price fails to consider this. This failing of Price is representative of his entire article and trying to evaluate Price's evaluation is just a distraction from a direct evaluation of the evidence.

I have a Thread which summarizes the doubt as to any original part of the TF:

Say It Ain't So Joe. Testimonium Flavium. Will Eusebius Be Convicted In Civil Court?

This Thread goes beyond just doubting any original TF to demonstrating that the best explanation is that Eusebius is the author. But staying with the context of HJ/MJ, the starting point is the question:

Is the clearly forged portion of the TF insignificant to its HJ witness as a whole?

If the answer is "no", than the TF is not evidence for HJ. The analogy would be a witness for the prosecution who has had a material portion of testimony impeached. This would than be evidence for the defense and not the prosecution.

So what is the answer to the question:

1 - Now there was about this time

2 - Jesus, a wise man,

3 - if it be lawful to call him a man; Forged

4 - for he was a doer of wonderful works, Forged

5 - a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. Forged

6 - He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. Forged

7 - He was [the] Christ. Forged

8 - And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, Forged

9 - those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;

10 - for he appeared to them alive again the third day; Forged

11 - as the divine prophets had foretold Forged

12 - these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. Forged

13 - And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day. Forged

So in summary, out of 13 (coincidence) main assertions, 10 have a significant part that is clearly Forged. Conclusion = the TF is probably not evidence for HJ. The scope of the question needs to be reduced to what is the evidence for and against any original part of the TF.

Moving to the External evidence we have the cumulative Patristic silence on the TF to Eusebius:

JW:
It should be clear to the objective scholar that the cumulative Patristic silence to Eusebius is quality evidence against any original portion of the TF. Generally, it is logical that Patristics would have been interested in Josephus and any mention of Jesus since Josephus was recognized as the official historian of Jesus' supposed time. This general observation is confirmed by the specific interest above of Patristics in Josephus and we can go so far as to say that Josephus was the most quoted/referred to non-Christian author in the early Church (more popular than even Homer).



Joseph

ErrancyWiki