JoeWallack

JW:
Neal Godfree continues his assault on the TF here: http://vridar.wordpress.com/

At some point he will need to deal with the argument for authenticity. Easier said than done. Not dealing with it, finding it. The common argument of supporters is:

1) All manuscripts have substantially what Eusebius said.

2) There are some/a weakness in the argument for unoriginality.

3) Therefore, the original TF (and god) exists.

Our own Stephen Carlson has his own variation here: http://www.hypotyposeis.org/weblog/2...stimonium.html

JW:
Emphasis mine. The problem of course is once you confess that the TF "has been thoroughly Eusebianized" what exactly are you claiming is original? How do you conclude that something was likely original if you don't know what that something was? If you don't know exactly what was original than shouldn't your conclusion be "maybe" rather than "likely"? Again, this is like the classic episode of The Adam Family where they give Cousin It a haircut and when they finish there is nothing left.

Although supporters of originality take the relatively uniform manuscript evidence as supporting originality doesn't it actually support unoriginality because:

1) The uniformity indicates a single source which we can be sure is unoriginal.

2) The lack of variation indicates there was no knowledge of any less Christianized version.

Thus, not only is the manuscript evidence not support for an original TF, it is firmly in the camp of supporting forgery and our major evidence for forgery is now as follows:

In summary we have the following categories of evidence that the TF is F'd:

1) Discovery

1 - No evidence for the TF before Eusebius

2 - Evidence that the TF was created during the career of Eusebius

2) Familiarity - Parallels to Eusebius' own Adversus Hieroclem.

3) Language - The key phrases are generally Eusebian and not Josephan.

4) Context - The context of the TF is contrary to Josephus.

5) Manuscript

1 - The uniformity indicates a single source which we can be sure is unoriginal.

2 - The lack of variation indicates there was no knowledge of any less Christianized version.

(We can deal with the 1,000 year old variation later)

In the big picture, IF the TF is forged (or interpolated), than not only is it not support for HJ, it is support for MJ as God knows what else OCD forged. Point Doherty! Score, Doherty 40, HJ Love (one another).

I am not aware of a coherent complete argument for authenticity of the TF on the Internet. Chris Price tries to give one here http://www.geocities.com/christianca..._josephus.html but it's just standard Apologetics:

1) Ignoring/Minimizing superior points against him.

2) Over emphasizing points he thinks are in his favor.

3) Unclear arguments.

4) Complex arguments.

5) Arguments not supported by the related text.

6) Conclusion not supported by his argument.

For anyone here, andrewcriddle, ApostateAbe, jon-eli, jules?, quantumcougar, who thinks the TF is partially original, what exactly is your argument? I'd be especially interested in hearing what the Skeptics here have to say.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

andrewcriddle

One of my reasons for believing that the TF is partialy authentic is that I don't think the use of it in Pseudo-Hegesippus depends on Eusebius.

See Eusebius did not create the TF

(I agree that this is an argument against Eusebian Authorship rather than an argument for partial authenticity but this thread has tended to link non-authenticity and Eusebian Authorship.)

Andrew Criddle

aa5874

This is really odd.

You are using a questionable source (Pseudo-Hegesippus) where authenticity is uncertain or believed to be inauthentic to try to claim that another is partially authentic.

It is really not known when and who wrote Pseudo-Hegesippus. And further, many events found in the pseudo-Hegesippus are fiction and implausible. The writing has no known credibilty with respect to Jesus of the NT.

jon-eli

I'm pretty sure he wasn't doing any such thing. He was using Pseudo-Hegesippus as an independent witness to the Testimonium Flavium, in argument against Eusebian authorship. This counts in a minor way towards partial authenticity, since one of the arguments against authenticity is the argument in favour of Eusebian authorship. The default position is that Josephus wrote the TF. The default stands, insofar as it's not eroded by valid criticism.

That goes for just about everything. History isn't science, after all.

As are many events in Plato's stories of Socrates. And in the gospel stories too, for that matter. This doesn't rule them out as sources of information.

aa5874

Once "pseudo" is applied to a writing, then such a writing is of very little use as a corroborative source or an indepedent source.

So, in effect, Pseudo-Hegesippus may have been written by Eusebius, after Church History or was also interpolated.

Again, once a writing is categorised as "pseudo", then it's credibilty, authencity, authorship and date of writing are uncertain.

jon-eli

All "pseudo" means is that it wasn't written by whom it purports to be written. In this context, its short-hand for "pseudonymous." The prefix "pseudo" doesn't pass judgment on the credibility, authenticity, or date of writing; it only passes judgment on authorship claims, and could just as easily and legitimately prepend the gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John.

And quite regardless of a writing's credibility, it can still be a useful source of information, so long as you don't take its claims at face value. As long as one has made an effort to deduce the nature and purpose of a work, it is quite valid to try to derive information from it, based on that deduced interpretive framework.

aa5874

Don't you see you have completely contradicted yourself as soon as you admit, "it only passes judgment on authorship claims."

It must be obvious to you that "pseudo' can then mean a forged writing where credibility, authenticity or date of writing would be uncertain.



Well, tell me when and who really wrote pseudo-Hegesippus? Did the author actually use Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 or was the author Eusebius himself?

jon-eli

I'm hardly the most logically consistent person on the planet, but I truly don't see how I contradicted myself. "Pseudo" is an irrelevant little descriptor that is applied only to remind us of pseudonymous authorship... it's tantamount to a mnemonic device, and it is by no means intended to take the place of full and detailed exegesis. It's a naming convention. It doesn't cut mustard for the purpose you want to use it for. If you want to insist that the work is devoid of value, then analyse the work. Analysing the name is tangential at best, and pretty silly.

This all started with a comment by Andrew Criddle, who uses the work as an independent witness to the Testimonium Flavium. For his intended purpose, the credibility, authenticity, and date of writing of pseudo-Hegesippus are not relevant.

I'd be out of my depth answering any of that. Andrew may stop by again and muster the energy to answer those queries.

aa5874

How can "pseudo" be an irrelevant description? That is most absurd.

A description of a writing cannot be irrelevant. It is extremely pertinent.

You must know that there is a vast difference between "non-pseudo" and "pseudo", authentic and non-authentic or forged and genuine.


It is illogical to think that credibilty, authenticity, and date of writing is irrelevant to pseudo-Hegesippus when the very same writing is being used to determine the credibilty, authenticity and date of writing of the TF.

Andrew may be out of depth, too.

andrewcriddle

Pseudo-Hegesippus is the name given to an anonymous latin work based on Josephus and later wrongly attributed to Hegesippus. (IE the author himself does not claim to be Hegesippus.)

The work was certainly written after the death of Eusebius and there is a high probability of a date sometime in 370-378 CE. The use of the TF in the work might in theory come from Eusebius but this is unlikely. Apart from Josephus himself, the author relies almost entirely on material available in Latin, and, at the time of writing, (ie before 378 CE), Eusebius had not been translated from Greek.

Andrew Criddle