mountainman

There is no question about who was the editor of the patristic package with its various fabrications. It was Eusebius, and he was handsomely rewarded for his services by Constantine, possibly in gold.

Following Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavianum,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly, Ken Olsen, 1999 the charge is forgery. That the TF is authentic and genuine is a claim loudly and widely publicised by the researcher (we will not call him an historian) Eusebius. According to the Felman review (1937 to 1980) we have these stats:

1) Feldman survey (1937 - 1980)

52 scholars reviewing the subject,
42 found the TF to either be, or to have traces of,
an authentic interpolation. This implies forgery.

4 scholars said: “It’s genuine and authentic!”
6 scholars said: “It’s mostly genuine and authentic!”
20 scholars said “It’s partially authentic, but there appears
to be some interpolations in it.”
9 scholars said: “It’s partially authentic, but there appear
to be several interpolations in it.”
13 scholars said: “It’s is not authentic at all!”.

2) From the Enlightenment to 1937: Consensus is FORGERY!

Additionally, prior to this survey, the majority of the pioneers of the field between the enlightment and 1937 stated in no uncertain terms, that the TF was a forgery: Bishop Warburton of Gloucester ("a rank forgery, and a very stupid one, too"), Dr. Nathaniel Lardner, Edward Gibbon – ("may furnish an example of no vulgar forgery"), Ittigius, Blondel, Le Clerc, Vandale, Tanaquil Faber, Dr. Alexander Campbell, Dr. Thomas Chalmers, Mitchell Logan, Theodor Keim, Cannon Farrar – ('interpolated, if not wholly spurious'), The Rev. Dr. Giles, Rev. S. Baring-Gould ("first quoted by Eusebius), Rev. Dr. Hooykaas ("certainly spurious, inserted by a later Christian hand."), Emil Schürer, Edwin Johnson, Jakob Burckhardt ("Eusebius was the first thoroughly dishonest historian of antiquity"), Adolph Harnack, John Remsburg, Arthur Drews, Marshall J. Gauvin ("Everything demonstrates the spurious character of the passage."), Solomn Zeitlin, Charles Guignebert ("a pure Christian forgery"), Joseph McCabe

Needless to say Roger, as a defence attorney for Eusebius I wish you every bit of British luck you can scrounge up. However I would like to remind you that my position is that of the prosecution attorney, and my brief is to state the case in no uncertain terms that Eusebius is guilty of professional historical fraud by altering his sources, no matter if he only added a few words to Josephus, and I will be seeking that he is to be found guilty (as charged by Olsen) of those inauthentic forgeries, and that he will be charged on at least one count, if not several counts, of fraud as a result.

I will be putting a word in to the judge and jury panel that Eusebius was probably influenced by the Roman emperor Constantine at that time, and Eusebius may have been instructed by Constantine to fabricate fraudulent proof in respect of the historical jesus in Josephus. At about the same time c.324 CE when the TF got penned, Constantine delivered a public relations speach to the greek academics his army had rounded up in the eastern empire around the influential city of Antioch. In that Oration Constantine was also guilty of providing fraudulent proof related to the historical jesus. Constantine asserted that two ROman poets predicted the advent of the historical jesus in the epoch BCE. The ancient historian Robin Lane-Fox called this proof "a fraud twice over.

My advice to you is to try and seek Eusebius to be found "partially innocent" of fraud, via Constantine. Everyone suspects that Eusebius forged lots of other documents such as the Agbar calling Jesus, Jesus calling Agbar Syriac letters, and truly weird fictitious literary profiles such as Heggesipus, Papias and Tertullian, etc. But he could have been pushed around by the boss. The boss executed alot of people including family people. I am sure Eusebius forged whatever evidence the boss decided that he wanted. Eusebius was very resourceful like that. I'll bet Eusebius was relieved when Constantine was finally poisoned by his brothers on account of the brutality of Crispus' execution c.326 CE (The new testament was important business. Maybe Crispus laughed in public?)


Best wishes,


Pete

Roger Pearse

Yes, I tend to subscribe to the cock-up theory of history, rather than the conspiracy. I'm quite prepared to believe that our Masters conspire against us; but if the roads and railways are any guide, they lack the ability.

Well, if this idea by Zeitlin were correct, and it is an anachronism, then it would. But I am far from convinced about it. The idea that Christians were a third bunch (note the careful use of general term), apart from both Greeks and Jews, appears a lot in the apologists of the 2nd and 3rd centuries. Indeed it sort of appears in Roman legislation, since the first two were both legal. It probably originates, therefore, in the latter half of the first century, once there is a very clear line between Jew (=legal) and Christian (=lion-food), and also between pagan (Caesar/Clapton is god) and Christian (Caesar is not god). This would fit neatly with Josephus, and since the TF plainly considers them trivial, and dying out, that also fits that date. So I think that bit is genuine.

All speculation, of course; but hey, I can write fiction like anyone else.

Once upon a time there were three bears. (They had once been bulls, but Daddy got burned badly in the dotcom collapse). One day they came home to find the windows swinging. "Who's been sleeping in my bed?" asked Daddy Bear. "Who's been sleeping in MY bed?" asked Mummy Bear? "Never mind the beds, who's nicked the video!?!" shrieked baby bear.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

aa5874

You have no evidence for speculation, yet you repeat it.

What was the name of your speculative copyist?

Eusebius?

Doug Shaver

Whoever interpolated the Testimonium wanted the reader to think that Josephus had written something that he didn't really write. That is literary forgery. Whether the deed was legally prosecutable is irrelevant.

Roger Pearse

1. Do we know that anyone consciously did? That it wasn't an accident? I don't know that we do.

2. Do we know who this person was? If not, we are on shaky ground discussing what he was thinking...

But do we know this? We don't know who he was, even, never mind his motives. We don't know whether he *had* any such motives.

Accident is a far more common cause of interpolation than intentional forgery; and forgery of ancient texts like this was actually much more difficult, in the era preceding printing, than most people suppose (although it did happen, e.g. at the Council of Florence). Unless we can rule this out, any such comments are unfounded.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Solo

....it's a forgery, Roger, if it be lawful to call it forgery.

Jiri

spin

How would you account for an accident happening with regard to this material in the specific location in the text? It purposefully was placed in the context of Pilate material, but disrupted the discourse structures of Josephus.


spin

gdeering

Can we just take that line of reasoning all the way back to Genesis, and the big man himself?

I don't see that there is much of a middle ground. It's forged or it's authentic. Any fudging is an obscurant's nicety.


Gregg

Roger Pearse

Most copying errors, most interpolations, most omissions in manuscripts are neither authentic nor forged, tho; they are accidents.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

Roger Pearse

Not sure what this has to do with my post.

The most common method of interpolation is that a marginal note is mistaken for a piece of text accidentally omitted by a previous copyist (both appear in the margin) and inserted. This certainly happened with copies of Josephus' works. Photius quotes a manuscript containing an otherwise unknown interpolation about Christ. One family of manuscripts of the Jewish War contains the TF in the text.

If we presume that the TF is an interpolation (which I don't tend to), there is no real need to suppose anything else but accident. Those who want to show forgery have to prove forgery. Knowing who the forger was would seem to be a pre-requisite.

All the best,

Roger Pearse