rlogan

Hi Peter -

I found this useful for discussion:

http://www.duke.edu/~frankbo/pdf/Forgeryhtml.htm



I have some currency trades I have to pay attention to and I will get back to Andrew Criddle's comment on Eusebius and this interpolation matter in a bit...

Julian

Sorry about the delay in responding but I never get online over the weekend, that's what work is for.

Because if Luke also wrote the TF and Origen didn't know about TF then that would put Luke after Origen, i.e. way late.

Julian

rlogan

Hi Andrew. I read through the argument and the responses. I am not of the pursuasion that Latin writers would be unaware of the TF passage in Eusebius. The doctored TF passage is so powerful for the Christian apologists that it is just too juicy to be unkown. I also disagree that it was not so important then. By the hand of Eusebius, it is plain as day why it is so important. The fiction that it is a source from a non-believer, and of course this great Jewish author.

I am in agreement with Vork that what is important about Eusebius is that this is the demarcation point for the TF, whether he is directly responsible or not. I do however see him as the mosty likely candidate.

All that need be known is that Eusebius has a copy of Josephus with the TF in order for it to widely disseminate. It is not necessary for all of Eusebius' work to be translated or for Latin writers to know Greek.

We're doing the exact same thing here now. Very few of us have read the entire AJ or JW of Josephus or the works of Eusebius, but it does not at all stop us from quoting and discussing it. We correspond strictly on points of interest.

A letter from one library or scholar to another is all that is necessary for the TF to become integrated in another text. A mere one page correspondence.


Cheers!

andrewcriddle

FWIW Pseudo-Hegesippus was clearly using AJ itself and not just passages in other writers allegedly quoted from it. (There are references to rather obscure passages in the AJ in his work). The presumption I think is that his copy of the AJ had the TF. This is unlikely at his date of writing, unless the TF dates from well before its first mention by Eusebius.

(Also FWIW we actually have no evidence of anyone quoting the TF explicitly from Eusebius till a little later than Pseudo-Hegesippus, ie in the early 390's)

Also there is a question whether his form of the TF is exactly that quoted by Eusebius. His form of the TF may have lacked any reference to 'he was the Christ'.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

Previous thread on Pseudo-Hegesippus.

rlogan

Hi again Andrew. Maybe I did not state my point clearly enough.


Please assume the following for purposes of discussion only:


1) There is a given distribution of texts. I don't care what it is. Just assume one. But also assume there is no TF anywhere.


2) Eusebius, or someone else, and in greek, latin, or east phonecian ebonics "discovers" the TF. It doesn't matter if it is in a copy of Josephus. It doesn't matter if it is in another text that is claiming to copy Josephus.


Then:


It is a simple matter for a widespread dissemination of this "discovery". It does not require entire works to be translated. It is irrelevant whether someone has Josephus or not. It is irrelevant whether someone has Eusebius' works or not.

What matters is that this one little paragraph be disseminated. A letter is written from one scholar or one library to another: "Dear Mr. X. We have discovered the TF. Copy enclosed. Sincerely, Mr. Y."

It is as simple as that. Christian caretakers of any texts without it will surely have the incentive to include it. Those without the text will cite it nevertheless.

Cheers...

edited to add: An author could very well be in posession of an AJ without the TF, hear about the citation, include it in their own, and then cite it themselves without mentioning that it was not in their original copy.

andrewcriddle

It is certainly possible for it to have happened like that.

However the first surviving example of someone quoting the TF in a letter (probably but not certainly from Eusebius) is Isidore of Pelusium (precise date of letter uncertain but probably c 410 CE).

Andrew Criddle

S.C.Carlson

I'm still trying to sort out the history of the sources to Pseudo-Hegesippus.

You mentioned in the earlier thread that there are parallels between Pseudo-Hegesippus and the Slavonic Josephus and that these parallels (probably) go back to a Greek original, which appears to me to be some kind of a digest of the BJ (Jewish War) with some material from the AJ (Jewish Antiquities) thrown in.

Assuming that Pseudo-Hegesippus was based on a Greek digest of Josephus, let us brainstorm its relationship to Eusebius. There are the three standard possibilities (plus variants):

A. Pseudo-Hegesippus is dependent on Eusebius. The compiler of the Greek digest obtained the testimonium from (1) Eusebius directly, (2) a "corrected" or marked up MS in the Caesarean library, or (3) someone quoting Eusebius.

B. (1) Eusebius or (2) one of his sources (e.g. Origen?), is dependent on the Greek digest. Eusebius preferred that version, and the archetype of the received text of the testimonium in Josephus AJ was eventually corrected to the Eusebian version.

C. Eusebius and the Greek digest are dependent on a common source, e.g. (1) Josephus, (2) an interpolated MS, etc.

Evaluating these possibilities, I would make the following remarks:

A. If the interpolated bits can be shown to be Eusebian, then possibility A has the most going for it. However, the non-use of Eusebius Church History generally by the compiler of the Greek digest and the lack of evidence before Isidore of the testimonium being quoted, indicates to me that for possibility A to be right, the Greek digest would have to be based on a marked-up MS of Josephus in Caesarea.

B is conceivable but the possibility is gratuitous when Eusebius has independent knowledge of Josephus and there is no other corroborating evidence that Eusebius was familiar with the Greek digest. If B is right, then there would have to have been a copy of the Greek digest in Caesarea, but the Greek digest need not have been compiled there. It is my understanding that Slavonic texts were usually based on Greek MSS obtained from or near Constantinople. Since much of Caesarea's library was carried off the Constantinople at some point, a Caesarean origin for the Greek digest is not out of the question.

As for C, I hold that (1) the original text of Josephus did not contain the interpolated bits. As for (2), Eusebius had a copy of Josephus in Caesarea and so the Greek digest would have to be dependent on that MS in Caesarea or its ancestor. However, Origen had a MS of Josephus too and Eusebius' MS is either identical to that or a copy of Origen's MS. It is seems doubtful to me that Origen had the interpolated testimonium, so the Greek digest would have to depend on the Caesarean MS, which begins to dovetail with scenario A(2) except for the identification of the interpolator.

Do all roads for Pseudo-Hegesippus lead back to Caesarea?

S.C.Carlson

I think that is true for the "He was the Christ" interpolation, but I'm having second-thought about the other interpolations.

andrewcriddle

Although I still think this is probable, I am now less ready to rule out the possibility that the Slavonic Josephus has been (indirectly) influenced by the much earlier Latin text of Pseudo-Hegesippus
Isidore is the first to quote the TF in a letter there is a previous quotation by Jerome in 'De Viris Illustribus' plus Rufinus's translation of the whole Church History into Latin a few years later.

(Could you clarify what you mean by 'interpolated bits ? I'm assuming you mean the three clauses that Meier regards as interpolations but I'm not sure. )
IF the text known to Origen (not necessarily uninterpolated) agreed with Eusebius except it did not have 'he was the Christ' then IIUC there would be no need to connect Pseudo-Hegesippus to Caesarea.

FWIW and IMHO I think that 'he was the Christ' is (in its present form at least) a late gloss possibly by Eusebius. I think 'if it be lawful to call him a man' is an early gloss probably known to Origen and the passage about the resurrection is part of the original form of the TF (possibly in a slightlly different form so as to make it clearly reported speech ie what Jesus's disciples claimed). Whether or not this earliest ascertainable form of the TF is by Josephus would depend on whether it is plausible for Josephus to mention such a claim even in the form of what Jesus's disciples claimed to be true.

Andrew Criddle