James The Least

A better question to ask is, if Josephus was interpolated, why not Philo? It seems like if you're a second to fourth century Bishop trying to bolster the historicity of the Messiah to win arguments with "pagans," Philo would just as good if not better a writer to insert a "witness" to Jesus. Why didn't they? And does the fact that they didn't weaken the case for the TF being a blatant forgery?

PhilosopherJay

Hi James the Least,

That is an excellent question. I think it is a good objection, but not a fatal one.

My guess would be that Eusebius did not have the earliest manuscripts of Philo and could not be sure how widely circulated they were. On the other hand, he could have known that he had the earliest manuscript of Paul's "Galatians," Josephus' "Antiquities" and Origen's "Against Celsius," and "Commentary on Matthew." It would have been easy for him to check around and see which works were in circulation at major libraries and which works were primarily at his library at Caesarea. If he had the only or earliest copy, it could be interpolated, but if others had old copies, it would be best not to use these books. This would explain no mention of Jesus in Josephus' "Wars."

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

Why do you want to accuse Eusebius of fraud by Guessing?? This is most remarkable.

Guesswork does NOT require any evidence or knowledge.

Guessing resolves nothing.

You are attempting to show that the Pauline writings were interpolated based on the interpolated Josephus.

Why is not "Church History" also an interpolated source??

When was "Church History" actually composed??

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

It has been a few years since I looked at this, but I recall that there were references to incidents as late of 315-318, so that seems to me to be about the time it was completed.

I assume it was widely circulated at the time since it was a more or less an official history authorized by the Emperor Constantine. The more widely a text is circulated the less power people have of making important changes. I am not aware of significant deviations in the manuscripts. It would be something interesting to find out.

Regarding guesses, as long as they fit all the evidence and are entirely possible, they are fine. If Peter was seen entering his empty house and Paul was seen entering with a gun a few minutes later, and Peter's dead body was found ten minutes after Peter leaves, and neighbor's recall a gun shot at this time, one may guess that Paul shot Peter.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

In Josephus writings there are references to incidents no later than 100 CE yet you think that it was interpolated around c 325 CE.

Are you trying to imply that "Church History" could not have been manipulated years later like those of Josephus.
Do you now see your contradiction?? Based on your own statement it would be less likely that the writings of Josephus would have been interpolated.

Many ancient writers mentioned the writings of Josephus and they were known for hundreds of years before the so-called Eusebius.

Why would Eusebius make important changes to the established writings of Josephus???

But, your guess is based on a previous guess that the Pauline writings were early and that Eusebius wrote "Church History". When you guesss you must also guess the opposite.

In such a scenario it is completely unacceptable to guess. A proper investigation should first be carried out. Nothing should be ruled in or out.

Did you guess that the dead man may have had a gun??

Did you guess that the dead man was not shot??

Now, if Eusebius was already dead by 355 CE then he may not have been the one who interpolated the TF.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

My hypothesis is that more widely circulated manuscripts are less likely to be interpolated.

You have suggested that the wide dissemination of Josephus' manuscripts before Eusebius disproves this. In fact, if we examine which works of Josephus were widely disseminated and therefore known, we see that it supports my hypothesis. "Antiquities" was never quoted directly before Eusebius and therefore, it is unlikely to have been in wide circulation. "Against Apion" and "Jewish War" were quoted and therefore we can assume in wide circulation. If I was a forger named Eusebius in the Fourth century, I would feel secure in interpolating "Antiquities" and not secure in interpolating "Against Apion" and "Jewish War."

From Flavius Josephus and His Testimony Concerning the Historical Jesus by Marian Hillar.
In short, we cannot find anybody definitely quoting from "Antiquities" before Eusebius. We do find quotes from "Against Apion" and "The Jewish War," which suggests that these books were widely circulated. It is "Antiquities" that contains the Jesus, James and John the Baptist interpolations. The more widely circulated "Against Apion" and "The Jewish War" do not contain them.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

Again, your claim is really in error. Antiquities of the Jews appear to have been well known for hundreds of years before Eusebius.

In a 3rd century writing attributed to Origen, the author not only mentioned Antiquities of the Jews but also identified the very same book, the 18th book of Antiquities.

Against Celsus 1.47 The 18th book of Antiquities was known in the Church at least 100 years before Eusebius.

The very TF is in the 18th book of Antiquities. The 20th book was also known in Apologetic circles before Eusebius.

Commentary on Matthew X In the 2nd -3rd century Apology attributed to Tertullian the author was aware of Josephus' ancient history of the Jews.

Apology In the 2nd century writing attributed to Justin that author was aware of Josephus Antiquities of the Jews.

Adddress to the Greeks It is also claimed that 2nd century writings attibuted to Irenaeus made refereferce to Antiquities of the Jews 2.10.1.

Fragments of Irenaeus The very Church writers were aware of the very books that were interpolated.

Your notion that well known writings were unlikely to be interpolated is extremely weak.

Again, writings attributed to Origen made reference to the very 18th and 20th books and mentioned Jesus, James and John.

See Against Celsus 1.47 and Commentary on Matthew X.

It is the complete opposite of what you have claimed.

Writings of well known authors were more likely to be interpolated.

Tacitus Annals was interpolated. Now are you going to claim Tacitus Annals was NOT known in antiquity??

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Nobody quoted for over 220 years from "Antiquities." This is evidence that the book was not in wide circulation.

Eusebius had control over Origen's manuscripts in Caesarea. There is evidence that he interpolated into them, so we cannot use Origen's references to show that "Antiquities" was in circulation before Eusebius.

The reference in Justin's "Apology" to Josephus as a vindicator of the Jews is a reference to "Against Apion," wherein he proves the Jews were not lepers as Apion claims.

The "Address to the Greeks" shows that the title was known, not that the work was red or circulated.

The "Lost Fragment of Irenaeus" which talks about Moses and Jesus was apparently assigned to Irenaeus in the 19th Century. I have no idea on what basis it was assigned to Irenaeus. Perhaps you know. It does not name any work of Irenaeus, so we have to assume that the attribution to Irenaeus is shaky at best.

The lack of known quotations suggests that the book did not circulate widely before falling into the hands of Eusebius.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

aa5874

Your claim is highly illogical. Please, you seem not to even understand that the very Jesus story is based on information found ONLY in the 18th Book of Antiquities of the Jews.

Even all the Gospels, especially gLuke and Acts of the Apostles appear to have used Antiquities of the Jews.

1. The Taxing of Cyrenius in the NT is found Only in Antiquities of the Jews 18

2. John the Baptist in the NT is found Only in Antiquities of the Jews 18.

3. The execution of John the Baptist in the NT is found ONLY in Antiquities of the Jews. 18

4. The death of Herod in the Gospels is found ONLY in Antiquities of the Jews 19.

5. Origen claimed Josephus mentioned Jesus, James and John the Baptist in Antiquities of the Jews.

6. The contents of the 18th book of Antiquities of the Jews was known by Origen a Church writer in the 3rd century.

7. The number of books on Antiquities of the Jews was known in the 3rd century by Origen a 3rd century writer.

8. Antiquities of the Jews was used by Church writers when arguing about the History of the Jews.

9. The 2nd-3rd century Tertullian acknowledged Josephus wrote the history of the Jews.

10. The 2nd century Irenaeus mentioned the contents of Antiquities of the Jews 2 when arguing about Moses.

11.The 2nd century Justin Martyr acknowledged Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus when arguing about the History of the Jews.

PhilosopherJay

Hi aa5874,

Thanks for the orderliness and neatness of your list. It makes things easier.

Regarding 1, it is hard to see how the author of Luke got the idea that a world-wide census was being taken by Cyrenius from reading Josephus. Josephus doesn't mention such a thing.

In those days a decree went out from Emperor Augustus that all the world should be registered. This was the first registration and was taken while Quirinius was governor of Syria. All went to their own towns to be registered.

We cannot count out that Cyrenius being a governor of Syria and Judea was common knowledge throughout Judea at the time that the gospel was written. For example, I know that Andrew Jackson was president of the United States and that he had something to do with a Mexican-American war. I never specifically read any book about Andrew Jackson, but probably remembered it from grade school American History courses.

The relationship between the two texts is an open question and cannot be used to prove that the writer of the Gospel of Luke or anybody else knew Josephus.

2-3 can better be explained, I think, by Eusebius interpolating into "Antiquities," rather than NT writers taking from "Antiquities"

4, like 1, gives us a problem again because the texts tell such different stories. In Antiquities, Herod Antipas is at the second day of a festival in Caesar's honor when he becomes ill. Five days later he dies. In Acts, he is sitting on his throne when God strikes him dead for blasphemy. There is the parallel that people talk of him being a God in both cases. However, the differences in the two stories suggest both are being derived from earlier source material.

5-7 are from Origen. Eusebius inherited the library of Origen which included all of Origen's works. Since we know Eusebius was familiar with "Antiquities," we may suggest that he forged passages in Origen that refer to the work. There are logical problems with each reference Origen makes to Antiquities, I have pointed them out in the past and we can discuss them if you like.

8,9 and 11 simply provide evidence that people knew that Josephus had written a history of the Jews, not that it circulated or was read by anyone.

As for 10, please tells me the name of the work where Irenaeus says this and we know this is by Irenaeus. Show me the work that this occurs in and we can discuss it.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin