Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 07-20-2012, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

No mention of Jesus as the Christ. Hegesippus here likely knows the original Testimonium

Slavonic Josephus

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/gno/gjb/gjb-3.htm

Quote:

1. At that time also a man came forward,—if even it is fitting to call him a man [simply]. 2. His nature as well as his form were a man's; but his showing forth was more than [that] of a man. 3. His works, that is to say, were godly, and he wrought wonder-deeds amazing and full of power. 4. Therefore it is not possible for me to call him a man [simply]. 5. But again, looking at the existence he shared with all, I would also not call him an angel.

6. And all that he wrought through some kind of invisible power, he wrought by word and command.

7. Some said of him, that our first Lawgiver has risen from the dead and shows forth many cures and arts. 8. But others supposed [less definitely] that he is sent by God.

9. Now he opposed himself in much to the Law and did not observe the Sabbath according to ancestral custom. 10. Yet, on the other hand, he did nothing reprehensible nor any crime; but by word solely he effected everything.

11. And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings. 12. And many souls became wavering, supposing that thereby the Jewish tribes would set themselves free from the Roman hands.

13. Now it was his custom often to stop on the Mount of Olives facing the city. 14. And there also he avouched his cures p. 107 to the people. 15. And there gathered themselves to him of servants (Knechten) a hundred and fifty, but of the folk a multitude.

16. But when they saw his power, that he accomplished everything that he would by word, they urged him that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate and rule over us. 17. But that one scorned it.

18. And thereafter, when knowledge of it came to the Jewish leaders, they gathered together with the High-priest and spake: "We are powerless and weak to withstand the Romans. 19. But as withal the bow is bent, we will go and tell Pilate what we have heard, and we will be without distress, lest if he hear it from others, we be robbed of our substance and ourselves be put to the sword and our children ruined." 20. And they went and told it to Pilate.

21. And he sent and had many of the people cut down. 22. And he had that wonder-doer brought up. And when he had instituted a trial concerning him, he perceived that he is a doer of good, but not an evildoer, nor a revolutionary, nor one who aimed at power, and set him free. 23. He had, you should know, healed his dying wife.

24. And he went to his accustomed place and wrought his accustomed works. 25. And as again more folk gathered themselves together round him, then did he win glory through his works more than all.

26. The teachers of the Law were [therefore] envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death. 27. And he, after he had taken [the money], gave them consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose.

28. And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law.

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 12:46 PM

And let's not forget Vita is written wholly in the first person but as Shaye Cohen notes with an underlying first person hypomnema written in the first person that becomes the basis to Jewish War.

maryhelena · 07-20-2012, 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

I used to go to York University when Steve Mason taught there and sort of hung out with him debating about stupid things in his office for a week in my life. I didn't even know he was this authority on Josephus. Just a big stupid looking lug, I thought - more of a jock than a professor. Anyway, it is interesting to note that he mentioned something that always stuck with me, that it isn't just that Josephus IN OUR GREEK TEXT speaks about himself in the third person but also the 'the Jews' which Mason thought odd for a Jew writing a Jewish history.

http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.c...e-agrippa.html

Quotes from Steve Mason

Quote:

The basic point remains the very one at which we started. None of Stephan's work will find a place in historical scholarship until he makes a historical argument: a full and complete one. He can use as much rabbinic lit. as he wants to use. That's all fine. Why should I care? It's his argument. But he will need to argue his hypothesis for all the evidence concerning Agrippa, and show why it explains all of the evidence better than any other hypothesis. There is no point in getting into abstract discussions of halakhic midrashim, or getting perturbed about it. It's all irrelevant. I have not made any sort of case about anything in this discussion, because that is not my role. I have been asked to respond to others' arguments, and in doing so I have (a) sought greater clarity about what they mean (though the responsibility lies with the advocate, not with me), (b) pointed out where I see the problems in what has been said -- whether those points could conceivably be better argued is not my concern; I respond to what has been argued -- and (c) relentlessly pointing out that arguing for one Agrippa will be a very large and complex undertaking. As I said to Stephan at the beginning, there are no shortcuts. If he wants sometime to come back with a full historical argument for Agrippa singular, explaining all the material and literary evidence, against all other historical hypotheses, then I would be willing to , have a look -- if he is looking for critical engagement.

Where do you get this stuff from? Josephus needs explaining, of course, as does all evidence (that's what history is about), but not defending. And the wide variety of literary evidence concerning Agrippa I needs explaining too. It's a lot, and I see no hope from what you have written so far that you will try in a methodical and systematic way to work through all that evidence and explain it by your hypothesis. If you do, great. If you don't, there's nothing to talk about.

I have identified precisely what the historical issue is, trying to be helpful to you. If you want to make a historical argument, you will need to show that your hypothesis explains all of the evidence better than any other hypothesis. It's that simple: that's what history is. It won't do to suggest that (other?) historians are stuck in preconceptions, just because you don't want to engage in historical argumentation.

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 12:59 PM

Quote:

1. Josephus (with his Synergoi) writes the accepted Greek Text without the Testimonium or the "Brother of Jesus" interpolation circa 85 CE.

But there are still more problems with the existing Greek text. The account of Pilate is wrong. From memory he leaves to go to Rome but is still there under Vitellius. There is also a tendency to add stuff to the end of chapters too.

2. An actual Hellenized Christian writer, Jewish convert or no, named Hegesippus uses Josephus as a source for his chronicle's chronology to 147 CE, extending Josephus's chronology by 77 years to do it. (And apparently corrupts the chronology still further by garbling the numbers in the Greek Text, assuming the not unreasonable scenario that the numbers became garbled in the course of the number of copies made between the original and the manuscript isn't the case.)

A Jewish writer is more likely to have been called Joseph - much, much more likely. To some degree that may well have happened in the loosest sense of the word. But then you have to start keeping your eye on all the variants.

a) there is an Aramaic hypomnema (please read Cohen for a fuller explanation)
b) there are the synergoi who may or may not have redacted the work with Josephus's permission
c) there is Clement's work written by Flavius Josephus or in the name of Josephus in 147 and the agreement with Hegesippus with respect to the tenth year of Antoninus
d) there is Irenaeus's text of Antiquities and either him not knowing Jewish War or having a copy without the Testimonium (because of the reference to Claudius).
e) there is Origen's addition of Antiquities which has a longer section of James's death and which some people connect with Hegesippus and the 'Jewish historical chronicle' mentioned in the Commentary on Matthew which references Agrippa as the messiah of the Jews.
f) there is Eusebius's copies of Antiquities and Jewish War which is basically identical with ours
g) there is the common ancestor of the Latin Hegessipus, Slavonic and the Yosippon - the latter two not dating back to Latin Hegesippus but all to an older examplar before the time of composition of Latin Hegesippus

In other words there are a multitude of texts where it is absolutely not convincing that Eusebius preserves the authentic edition of Josephus. Why? Just look at the job he did to the corpus of Origen. Jerome tells us that he went through the early Alexandrian writers and where he saw something that he felt doesn't make sense or didn't reflect what should be the authentic view of an Alexandrian Church Father summarily decided that it was added to the text by a heretic! The same pattern was certainly applied to our surviving text of Josephus. Whatever Eusebius felt wasn't 'reasonable' was judged to be a late edition.

How do I know that? Because of Eusebius's devotion to Origen. Why don't Eusebius and Origen share the same edition of Antiquities? My guess is that Eusebius judged the long section about James to be a later addition.

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 01:02 PM

Quote:

The basic point remains the very one at which we started. None of Stephan's work will find a place in historical scholarship until he makes a historical argument: a full and complete one. He can use as much rabbinic lit. as he wants to use. That's all fine. Why should I care? It's his argument. But he will need to argue his hypothesis for all the evidence concerning Agrippa, and show why it explains all of the evidence better than any other hypothesis. There is no point in getting into abstract discussions of halakhic midrashim, or getting perturbed about it. It's all irrelevant. I have not made any sort of case about anything in this discussion, because that is not my role. I have been asked to respond to others' arguments, and in doing so I have (a) sought greater clarity about what they mean (though the responsibility lies with the advocate, not with me), (b) pointed out where I see the problems in what has been said -- whether those points could conceivably be better argued is not my concern; I respond to what has been argued -- and (c) relentlessly pointing out that arguing for one Agrippa will be a very large and complex undertaking. As I said to Stephan at the beginning, there are no shortcuts. If he wants sometime to come back with a full historical argument for Agrippa singular, explaining all the material and literary evidence, against all other historical hypotheses, then I would be willing to , have a look -- if he is looking for critical engagement.

Where do you get this stuff from? Josephus needs explaining, of course, as does all evidence (that's what history is about), but not defending. And the wide variety of literary evidence concerning Agrippa I needs explaining too. It's a lot, and I see no hope from what you have written so far that you will try in a methodical and systematic way to work through all that evidence and explain it by your hypothesis. If you do, great. If you don't, there's nothing to talk about.

I have identified precisely what the historical issue is, trying to be helpful to you. If you want to make a historical argument, you will need to show that your hypothesis explains all of the evidence better than any other hypothesis. It's that simple: that's what history is. It won't do to suggest that (other?) historians are stuck in preconceptions, just because you don't want to engage in historical argumentation.

Mason takes the ultra conservative position on Josephus. He is to the right of Cohen and just about everyone else. Nonetheless I published this alongside the opinions of people who were supportive of my opinion for a balanced assessment. I wish more people did that. You should have made clear that's me posting that critical view at my blog alongside more favorable ones.

This is not a reaction against my Hegesippus theory (which I developed here at the forum years later). Just a general view of our discussions from when I was twenty years old. Who has it all together at that age?

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 01:06 PM

I wonder how many of the stupid things that are said here at the forum could get even as many as one person of Steve Mason to comment upon it. As I said a hundred posts back. I have never published this theory but I could - if I had the time. It is not unreasonable. Mason ignores the Clement reference. He has to.

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 01:10 PM

3) Hegesippus credits Josephus, perhaps without mentioning that the 77 years bit is his insertion.

No Clement says 'Flavius Josephus' not just 'Josephus.' Sorry Charlie, this doesn't work from here.

4) Epiphanus quotes Hegesippus' chronology, correctly attributing it to Hegesippus.
Clement quotes Hegesippus' chronology, crediting the entire chronology to Josephus, which he could easily have done if Hegesippus had not made it clear that the 77 years part was his addition.

Epiphanius doesn't credit anyone to my knowledge. Scholars just identify it as Hegesippus because of the nexus of similar quotes and episcopal lists from Irenaeus, Clement, Eusebius and Epiphanius. It's quite complicated. But to my knowledge only Eusebius calls it 'Hegesippus.'

5. Centuries later the Pseudo-Hegesippus was foisted off as Josephus, but was labeled as Hegesippus by a Christian librarian who was confused by the similar names and aware that Hegesippus wrote a history but not that Josephus did.

We're talking about the Latin text now. This is an open question. I am not claiming a direct relationship between 'Hegesippus' and 'Hgesippus' or Iosippus or WTF names appear here. I am claiming that all references go back to 'Flavius Josephus' in some form. There is corruption here.

Duke Leto · 07-20-2012, 01:12 PM

Pathetic.

Absolutely pathetic. Beat him until you get a response and it's a non-response. You have not answered one damned point about my Hegesippus scenario other than to state that no Jew would have a Greek name. (Philo?)

Your old teacher, who is someone who has every reason to be generous to you, has accused of exactly the kind of academic sloppiness I've been hounding you on since day one.

OK Stephan, you've proven your theory is worthless to my satisfaction and to just about every non-Stephan Huller reader of this thread. Good luck getting tenure or scholarly respect. Perhaps you ought to listen to your wife more.

My only regret in abandoning this thread is that you will now inevitably turn around and claim victory.

stephan huller · 07-20-2012, 01:14 PM

Mary Helenaa's link doesn't go back to the original post. It should be said that this was an email debate that got started between two professors, one in favor of my thesis and the other (Mason) against it. Here are all the posts:

http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.c...ason-part.html
http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.c...-response.html
http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.c...e-agrippa.html
http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.c...regarding.html
http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.c...-response.html

If that ever insulting nemesis of mine cares to look at the whole debate the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Making things personal is a sign of small mind.

Duke Leto · 07-20-2012, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stephan huller

3) Hegesippus credits Josephus, perhaps without mentioning that the 77 years bit is his insertion.

No Clement says 'Flavius Josephus' not just 'Josephus.' Sorry Charlie, this doesn't work from here.

That's a distinction without a difference. So Hegesippus credits Flavius Josephus and Epiphanus quotes without attributing it to Hegesippus. And if that's the case, Clement can be doing what maryhelena suggested at the start of this nonsense: Adding the 77 years himself while crediting the whole to Josephus, with Epiphanus quoting Clement.

Does it not trouble you that you are basing your whole argument off the testimony of a Church Father?

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

07-20-2012, 12:46 PM	#312
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	And let's not forget Vita is written wholly in the first person but as Shaye Cohen notes with an underlying first person hypomnema written in the first person that becomes the basis to Jewish War.

07-20-2012, 01:06 PM	#316
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I wonder how many of the stupid things that are said here at the forum could get even as many as one person of Steve Mason to comment upon it. As I said a hundred posts back. I have never published this theory but I could - if I had the time. It is not unreasonable. Mason ignores the Clement reference. He has to.

07-20-2012, 01:10 PM	#317
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	3) Hegesippus credits Josephus, perhaps without mentioning that the 77 years bit is his insertion. No Clement says 'Flavius Josephus' not just 'Josephus.' Sorry Charlie, this doesn't work from here. 4) Epiphanus quotes Hegesippus' chronology, correctly attributing it to Hegesippus. Clement quotes Hegesippus' chronology, crediting the entire chronology to Josephus, which he could easily have done if Hegesippus had not made it clear that the 77 years part was his addition. Epiphanius doesn't credit anyone to my knowledge. Scholars just identify it as Hegesippus because of the nexus of similar quotes and episcopal lists from Irenaeus, Clement, Eusebius and Epiphanius. It's quite complicated. But to my knowledge only Eusebius calls it 'Hegesippus.' 5. Centuries later the Pseudo-Hegesippus was foisted off as Josephus, but was labeled as Hegesippus by a Christian librarian who was confused by the similar names and aware that Hegesippus wrote a history but not that Josephus did. We're talking about the Latin text now. This is an open question. I am not claiming a direct relationship between 'Hegesippus' and 'Hgesippus' or Iosippus or WTF names appear here. I am claiming that all references go back to 'Flavius Josephus' in some form. There is corruption here.

07-20-2012, 01:12 PM	#318
Duke Leto Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: Philadelphia, PA Posts: 3,387	Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. Beat him until you get a response and it's a non-response. You have not answered one damned point about my Hegesippus scenario other than to state that no Jew would have a Greek name. (Philo?) Your old teacher, who is someone who has every reason to be generous to you, has accused of exactly the kind of academic sloppiness I've been hounding you on since day one. OK Stephan, you've proven your theory is worthless to my satisfaction and to just about every non-Stephan Huller reader of this thread. Good luck getting tenure or scholarly respect. Perhaps you ought to listen to your wife more. My only regret in abandoning this thread is that you will now inevitably turn around and claim victory.

07-20-2012, 01:14 PM	#319
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Mary Helenaa's link doesn't go back to the original post. It should be said that this was an email debate that got started between two professors, one in favor of my thesis and the other (Mason) against it. Here are all the posts: http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.c...ason-part.html http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.c...-response.html http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.c...e-agrippa.html http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.c...regarding.html http://therealmessiahbook.blogspot.c...-response.html If that ever insulting nemesis of mine cares to look at the whole debate the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Making things personal is a sign of small mind.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.