Vorkosigan

Can you flesh this out please? How is a later date of Luke warranted?

Vorkosigan

I suggest you get a copy of poster John Hud's new book on the Roman Origins of Christianity. They push the parody aspect of the TF and its flanking paragraphs farther than anyone, and they may shed new light on the topic for you. Also, Bell's article "Josephus the Satirist: A Clue to the Original Form of the [TF]" argues that Hegesippus realized the flanking passages were parody.

"Hegisippus sums up Ant. XVIII 65-71 in only eight lines, omitting Mundus' original offer to Paulina and Ida's role. The priests are bribed at once and Pauline comes to the temple. The love making scene takes on comic aspects [latin omitted] Hegesippus then introduces the elemnt of pregnancy, which is altogether lacking in Josephus [latin omitted]. To the Christian audience for whom he was writing this must surely have suggest the Annunciation in Luke 1."

He then notes there are some similarities in language between the H passage and Luke's Annunciation scene, concluding

"It would seem then that [H] responded to the Paulina/Mundus story as if it were a parody of the Annuniciation."

Bell then goes on to locate another instance of similar parody in H's work.

I have this article as a set of .jpgs which Dr. Bell kindly scanned and sent to me. I can email it to you if you like, just send me an email, same for anyone else who wants it.

Vorkosigan

rlogan

Hi Peter. My comment goes beyond the above, but most certainly includes it.


You've amassed a great deal of knowledge and it is a curious thing to see an argument on the TF compartmentalized.

The lonely reference in Josephus is suspicious enough. But when we consider all of the interpolations, the outright fabrications, the supression and destruction of competing script, the earlier history of HB fables, and some of the real outrages such as the donation of Constantine - we ought to be fairly
convinced we have a prima facia case when we throw in motive, means, and opportunity for the Christian "caretakers" of Josephus. We darn near have a confession by Eusebius to boot.

If no HJ then of course there are no disciples and we have a myth that becomes retroactive history. We expect, and find indeed that the whole of the evidence is explained. The early epistles absent an HJ. The lack of mention outside the clumsy Josephus reworking. The failure of Josephus to include "Christians" in his discussion of sects or this specific "Jesus" in his coverage of rabble-rousers. etc.


So my comment is that it seems to me you've been careful not to import some general matters into the work that I feel have evidenciary value. The Christian tradition of forging, fabling, and indeed even killing people who dare to disagree makes a paragraph of interpolation a trifling matter well within their M.O.

When you list the literary critiques side-by-side consider two completely different ancillary pieces of evidence:

1) Christians with a long history of rigid honesty, fidelity to texts, and not one example of a fable or exaggeration of man-god doing superhuman feats.

2) Christians with a long history of, well - the one we're familiar with.


Is it not true that 1) and 2) matter to us in rendering judgement?

I realize you don't want to turn it into a tome. Nevertheless incorporation of observations can be made by reference.

I don't recall where you stand on Tacitus' reference to Christians and the Neronian persecution, Hegissipus in Eusebius, Pliny's letters and etc. - but where I stand on all of that certainly impacts how I view the TF (and Eusebius in particular).

Do these matters not influence your thinking on the case at hand?

Cheers.

Peter Kirby

Hello Vork,

You've read my mind! I actually have the article by Bell and the earlier article by Clyde Pharr. It's something that Paget quickly dismisses, but I want to consider it more. I also got Eisler's book (from "Good Books" republishing company). I don't know anything about John Hud's book; is it worthwhile to buy it?

best,
Peter Kirby

offa

Sir, this is for argumentation. Maybe I want to add another log to
the fire as opposed to being stoic.

The insertion made by Eusebius in Josephus was at an exactly correct
chronological point. (Take my accusation lightly, it may not have
been Eusebius, but he, admittedly, is a likely culprit. The insertion
was by a do-gooder with a lack of knowledge into what the Truth
represents, that is, the Truth is not necessarily truth.)

Josephus has a tendency to confuse me about his hatred for the
Samaritans. I am not sure that he really hates them, but that, he
wants to make us think that he does in order to protect their
sanctity. They are a secret group that he belongs to and in order
not to expose them he separates himself from them. Josephus' ruse
will throw off the gullibles like Eusebius.

Now, here is a possible ruse that Josephus understands but did not
initiate, i.e., Sanballet and Zerubabel are the same person! Zerubabel
was a Jew in a power struggle with the clergy and his writings did
not survive later purges. His embattlement with Haggai (or was it
Ezra?) managed to get his name changed from Zerubabel to Sanballet
thus eliminating the "House of David".

The point is, through Luke, we realize that the Virgin was a
Samaritain, and, our knowledge tells us that all Samaritan wives are
perpetual Virgins. In order for Joseph to take Mary as a wife she
must be of the same sect that he/she is, in other words, Joseph was a
Samaritan. (And, goddamit, Samaritans are local to Jerusalem just
like Galilee is near to the Dead Sea and not a ways up north.)

Josephus could have thrown us a curve ball and admitted his knowledge
of Christ, but, this knowledge is scant in his writings. Wouldn't
you think he would refer more often to Christ? Winston believed
Josephus was a Christian, didn't he?

What I write and what I believe is the simple fact that Jesus did
exist and that he was just as human as Ghandi.

thanks,

offa

Peter Kirby

Hello rlogan,

Please allow me to respond to what you've said and to ask you if you'd like to clarify or to expand.

This is the flavor of thought I was trying to head off with my quoted statement (although you may not mean it in the sense of the rather crude argument set out below):

Now, there is a valid deductive argument that can be made (note the meaning of "valid"--doesn't mean the premises are true):

1. If "No HJ", then "no Jesus in Josephus".
2. "No HJ".
3. Therefore, "no Jesus in Josephus".

The argument is valid, but it is vulnerable to the G. E. Moore shift: which is to accept the major premise, deny the conclusion, and reach the opposite of the minor premise: i.e., take 1 as true, say "Jesus in Josephus", and then say "HJ".

BUT! I don't want to make either argument. Too often people will ride into the discussion on a pony labeled "HJ" or "no HJ", and go off running in the direction their horse wants to run. In apprehension of this tendency, one also often sees criticism of the biases of people who discuss the passage: I got people who (not so nicely) accused me of this or that in response to my original essays, and there are many people who charge bias against those who say "no Jesus in Josephus" and "no HJ".

The thing is, if the examination of the passage is to be useful at all, it has to be first considered independent of any strongly held positions on the origins of Christianity. Then, when the arguments have been fairly considered in such a way, we can attempt to integrate the probabilities in the case of Josephus with the rest of what we believe about the history of Christianity in this period.

If indeed the case for the origins of Christianity along such lines as Wells or Doherty have suggested is correct, then a mild to moderate weight of evidence for Jesus in Josephus would only be one consideration--and one that could be counterbalanced and then some, perhaps. (I believe that Doherty himself takes, or has taken, such a position that he doesn't say he knows that there is no reference in Josephus per se, but that whatever case there is for that is not near strong enough to overcome his own arguments.)

And, my goodness, anything that incorporates a comprehensive consideration of the "early epistles" in an understanding of ancient Christianity would properly be a tome, or perhaps I should say, a set of webpages comparable in size to Doherty's own on the same subject. That I am not writing right now, if only to keep my grades up in school.

No, we ought not be convinced by such an argument, if I understand it. What you are saying is that you can generalize behavior over the set of people termed "Christians": that is, shall we say, that they are like the Cretans, "Christians are always liars, forgers, immoral brutes, etc., etc." And, look, there is a "prophet of their own" admitting to his own forgery.

The problem I have here is that "Christians" do not have a consistent set of behavioral characterestics, at least when it comes to matters like honesty and so forth. If one divides the world into religious groups--Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, pagans, etc.--you will find that there are forgers in each group, that there are inveterate liars in each group, that there are brutal killers in each group. And then there are saints and ordinary men. That doesn't help us solve any particular case.

You are free to start a thread on Eusebius's confession to the interpolation of the passage on Jesus into Josephus if you'd like to do so.

Actually, yes. I have a great interest in any other examples of interpolations into classical works (or patristic works even), religiously motivated or otherwise. Please submit your examples and evidence. This would be something useful, positive, and interesting.

best,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Haven't seen it yet, just a draft which I have been informed has been heavily rewritten. he's a poster here, BTW.

Amaleq13

The reduced Testimonium seems to me no more credible as original to Josephus than the blatantly Christian extended dance version. Arguments suggesting that it should be accepted because it is "Josephan in style and language" ignore the implications of Joseph comparing Jesus' wisdom to that of Solomon and David or comparing Jesus' miraculous displays of supernatural power with Elisha. Neither of those implications seems credible to me and certainly not given the brevity of the remarks. If Josephus truly thought Jesus was as wise as Solomon & David or performed miracles as amazing as Elisha, isn't it reasonable to expect him to feel compelled to discuss such a man at least as much as he does John the Baptist?

If the Testimonium can truly be reduced to an original that contains actual phrases from other portions of Josephus, I think that only suggests we are dealing with two interpolators. The earlier was simply relatively more intelligent and subtle in his efforts but, ultimately, no more convincingly able to avoid inserting his own beliefs. Repeating phrases found elsewhere in the text only requires familiarity with the texts but the new context does not at all seem credible to me unless we are willing to accept that Josephus held Jesus in remarkably high esteem but not enough to write very much about him.

In addition, the reasoning used to defend the reduced Testimonium does just as well supporting the notion that the entire reference be removed. If the fact that the short version reads smoothly is significant, then the fact that the page reads smoothly without any reference to Jesus is just as significant.

rlogan

Hi Peter. Here we have the crux of the issue, and yes I wish to clarify my position.

My argument is not at all structured in this way:

Predisposition about HJ -> Position on TF.

My position on all matters pertaining to early christianity are simultaneous and mutually dependent. It is not at that I have taken a position on the Historical Jesus and viewed the TF with a "bias".

I object in a friendly way to the term "bias" because it implies a non-objective view when in my case at least it is the evidence that has led me away from my former fundy gospel singer view to the present (evolving) view.

I was a juror on a drunk driving case. We did not have a "bias" about every piece of evidence with the exception of one particular piece under debate. Every piece of evidence was cojointly considered and in doing so the whole of it was judged. Same here.


I do understand this Peter and respect the attempt. Personally, I still find a dependency that is impossible for me to extricate myself from. It matters to me that Christians were not numerous enough to warrant note until much, much later than the gospels brazenly proclaim when I am reading Josephus' account of the Essenes or the goofy Jesus who was running around with the "woe unto Israel" refrain. I simultaneously reject the "multitudes" Jesus supposedly led and the TF as a forgery.



Doherty's work of course had a great deal of influence on me and simultaneously affects every other issue.

Sure thing, Peter. Not necessary to write them all out. I'm thinking that you must be open on a lot of things still. So a complete paradigm isn't hinted at in your discussion of the TF.


Oh, you've made a charicature of the argument, but yes there are some general observations that are decisive and I think that we ought to use them.

Christians as a group - to a man - are driven by faith. And this faith, logically, is absurd. To them the stakes are very high - eternal life. When eternal life is the reward of an irrational superstition and winning converts is a central motivation - then a TF interpolation is a slam dunk. And intellectually dishonest arguments on the C&E page are also symptomatic.

It is a much better explanation than Josephus being a lonely purveyor of an astonishing character, in such brief terms, out of context, and not in his style.

Eusebius promoting the "noble lie" is of import since so many things came from his hand - and the TF in particular. Don't you think it important that he is the first reference? And what he was using it for? I do.


be nice.


Every critical researcher knows to evaluate his source, whether secular or not. Many current examples of fraud in biblical or religious genre are motivated by financial profit. There are also some motivated by power and adulation.

There is a risk or cost of incorporating ancillary evidence. But there is also a risk or cost of not doing so.

The risk of not incorporating the long history of religious interpolations, fabrications, persecutions, and etc. outweighs the risk of including it. IMHO.

Cheers.

andrewcriddle

I argued here that the greatest single problem with Eusebius creating the TF is the use of a version of the TF by pseudo-Hegesippus c 370 CE writing in Latin and probably in Rome.

IF Eusebius created the TF then pseudo-Hegesippus must have derived it directly or indirectly from him. However, there is practically no other evidence of influence of Eusebius (or any other Greek writer except Josephus), on pseudo-Hegesippus and given the time place etc such influence from Eusebius is prima facie improbable.

Andrew Criddle