Freethought & Rationalism Archive

maryhelena · 09-20-2011, 07:47 AM

An updated chart:

I think the first to use the wonder-doer story in connection with the gospel story was gLuke. As in my earlier chart. Yes, the dating of gLuke - read literally, ie centered around the 15th year of Tiberius, results in the wonder-doer story, with a birth narrative in the 15th year of Herod the Great, being a story incompatible with gLuke's apparent timeline. However, since gLuke 3:1 can be viewed as a symbolic time frame - from 40 b.c. to the 15th year of Tiberius - then - the wonder-doer story is relevant to gLuke. Thus, it's gLuke that is likely the first to use the name 'Jesus' in connection with the wonder-doer story. It follows then that the "but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel" is not a later interpolation but part of the gLuke attempt to link the gospel JC story with the wonder-doer earlier story, now preserved in Slavonic Josephus.

Eusebius, with the controversy re the earlier crucifixion story in the 7th year of Tiberius - would be able to claim a sanction for his interpolation of the christian element into Antiquities. ie. gLuke has already made the storyline connection between the wonder-doer/wise man story and the gospel JC - but Antiquities then needed an update in order to put an end to the 7th year crucifixion controversy.

With the Eusebius christian interpolation into Antiquities, the wonder-doer story is now tied, 'historically', to gLuke's Jesus crucifixion story following the 15th year of Tiberius. gLuke made the story connection; wonder-doer/wise man/Jesus - Eusebius made the 'historical' connection via christian interpolation into Antiquities

Slavonic Josephus	Antiquities	Luke ch.24	Eusebius	Antiquities TF
At that time also a man came forward,—if even it is fitting to call him a man [simply]. His nature as well as his form were a man's; but his showing forth was more than [that] of a man.	Now there was about this time a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man;	“About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet,	Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man;	And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man.
His works, that is to say, were godly, and he wrought wonder-deeds amazing and full of power. Therefore it is not possible for me to call him a man [simply]. But again, looking at the existence he shared with all, I would also not call him an angel...And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings..	for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. .......He drew over to him many of the Jews	powerful in word and deed before God and all the people.	For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness.... And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks. He was the Christ	for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. .......He drew over to him many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ.
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. And he, after he had taken [the money], gave them consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose. And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law.	And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross..	The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him;	When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross.... Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day.	And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross.... And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
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.	-	but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel	-	-
The Second Mention of the Wonder-doer	-	-	-	-
Again Claudius sent his authorities to those states—Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander.................many had been discovered as servants of the previously described wonder-doer; and as they spake to the people about their teacher,—that he is living, although he is dead, and that he will free you from your servitude,—many from the folk gave ear to the above-named and took upon themselves their precept...	...those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;.... for he appeared to them alive again as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.	And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place.... They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen.	..those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him......For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him.	..those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;.... for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.

andrewcriddle · 09-20-2011, 12:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

..................................................
Such things, along with the situation in other writers to be noted shortly, illustrates the diversity of emendation which various Christian scribes were performing on Josephus in a variety of quarters, most of them seemingly not cognizant of the contradictory or missing material in other copies being used throughout the Christian world. Indeed, that situation apparently continued for centuries. Zindler makes a good case (p.48-50) for concluding that the 9th century Photius, Patriarch of Constantinople, in compiling his Library (a review of several hundred ancient books, including treatises on the works of Josephus) apparently possessed a copy of Josephus which contained no Testimonium, nor even those interpolations we conclude were introduced to make Josephus say that the destruction of Jerusalem was due to the death of James the Just, or of John the Baptist. As Zindler says,

“Since Photius was highly motivated to report ancient attestations to the beginnings of Christianity, his silence here argues strongly that neither the Testimonium nor any variant thereof was present in the manuscript he read. This also argues against the notion that the Testimonium was created to supplant an originally hostile comment in the authentic text of Josephus. Had a negative notice of a false messiah been present in the text read by Photius, it is inconceivable he could have restrained himself from comment thereon.”

Photius does discuss the Antiquities 18 passage on John the Baptist. To think that he would do so yet pass up one about Christ himself—no matter what its nature—is, as Zindler says, quite inconceivable. Photius at a number of points also seems to quote marginal notes from his copy of Josephus, giving evidence of the ease with which such things could have found their way into the original text and given rise to debates about what was authentic to Josephus’ own writings. And before leaving Zindler on Photius, we can note a feature that will figure in our discussion of the other Josephan reference to Jesus. The reading in Photius’ copy of that allegedly indisputable phrase in Antiquities 20, “the brother of Jesus, called Christ, whose name was James,” apparently read simply, “James, the brother of the Lord.”

photius says:

Quote:

Herod, the tetrarch Galilee and Peraea, son of Herod the Great, Josephus reports, took the wife of his brother Herod who was called Herodias. She also was descended from Herod the Great, being born of his son Aristobulus who Herode the Great had had put at death; she had Agrippa as a brother. Herod took her from her husband and married her. It was he who assassinated John the Precursor out of fear, says Josephus, which did not raise the people against him because all followed the lesson of John because of his exceptional virtue. It was under his reign also that the Passion of the Saviour took place

I think this implies that Josephus found a reference to the death of Jesus in the section of Antiquities dealing with the rule of Herod the Tetrarch ie the early chapters of Book 18.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 09-20-2011, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedM

...............................................
[Ken Olson's article]

Quote:

I will comment on a few of the differences between the two versions of the _Testimonium_.

hHDONHi DECOMENWN, "receive with pleasure," replaces SEBOMENWN, "revere" (or "revering"), and PRWTWN ANDRWN, "first men," replaces ARCONTWN, "rulers." Both hHDONHi DECOMENWN and PRWTWN ANDRWN are phrases found in Josephus for which I have been unable to find other parallels in Eusebius' writings. Are they signs of an authentic Josephan substratum lying beneath our present _Testimonium_?

I do not think so. For the reasons given above, it would be difficult to argue that our version of the _Testimonium_ does not show Eusebian influence. Further, the Eusebian version of the passage was originally composed for the _Demonstratio_, not the _Historia_. The _Demonstratio_ is the earlier text, and the _Testimonium_ is an encapsulation of arguments found in it that receive relatively little attention in the _Historia_. In particular, the main argument of D.E. 3.5, that the disciples continued affection for Jesus after his death is proof of his and their good character, is missing from the _Historia_. This means that Eusebius added the two Josephan phrases to his own version of the _Testimonium_. But if Eusebius is capable of isolating these two phrases in Josephus and adding them to his work, there is no special reason to believe he took them from a passage about Jesus. The phrases themselves have no necessary connection with Jesus and could have been taken from elsewhere in Josephus writings ( e.g., hHDONHi DECASQAI from A.J. 18.59). These two phrases are not a sufficient basis on which to infer an authentic Josephan version of the _Testimonium_.

Hi Ted
Alice Whealey argues, in the very interesting article you referenced earlier, that SEBOMENWN in the DE is probably not what Eusebius wrote but a copyist's correction. Apparently the Syriac Theophania goes back to a Greek hHDONHi DECOMENWN and the Theophania here is following the DE.

Andrew Criddle

DCHindley · 09-20-2011, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zindler

... Photius does discuss the Antiquities 18 passage on John the Baptist. To think that he would do so yet pass up one about Christ himself—no matter what its nature—is, as Zindler says, quite inconceivable...

You can be sure that if they possessed an original text with the partial fantasy TF, they would have mentioned it.

Strange then, that Photius appears to be aware of Eusebius's writings, but still didn't mention the TF. Does this suggest that he had a copy of Eusebius that DIDN'T contain the TF? Because otherwise, if the logic above is correct, Photius should have mentioned it.

...

So why did Photius not refer to the TF?

But he does. It is here:

Ca. 860 CE. Photius Bibliotheca/Myriobiblon/Codices book 33.

I have read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias. He omits the greatest part of what was most necessary to be related; but, as infected with Jewish prejudices, being also himself a Jew by birth, he makes no mention at all of the advent, or of the acts done, or of the miracles wrought, by Christ.

It is all in the 1st half of the TF:

a) 63 And there is about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is necessary to say that he is a man; [the advent]

b) for he was a doer of miraculous works, a teacher of men who receive true things with pleasure, [miracles wrought & acts done respectively]

c) and many Jews, and also many of the Greek element, he led to himself;

d) this man was the Christ. [by Christ]

It seems Photius he took the TF for granted, as he criticizes Justas of Tiberius for omitting what was "most necessary to be related." However, why would it be more likely he did/didn't read it in Josephus versus Eusebius (DE 313 CE, HE 328 CE, or Theophany), or Jerome (Greek translation of Latin after 5th century), Isadore of Pelusium (Letter 1259, late 5th early 6th century), Sozomen (Hist of Church, 5th century), or Oecumenius (Common the Apocalypse 88 6th century), all of whom identify the passage as from Josephus, often giving the book number.

DCH

aa5874 · 09-20-2011, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

....But he does. It is here:

Ca. 860 CE. Photius Bibliotheca/Myriobiblon/Codices book 33.

I have read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias. He omits the greatest part of what was most necessary to be related; but, as infected with Jewish prejudices, being also himself a Jew by birth, he makes no mention at all of the advent, or of the acts done, or of the miracles wrought, by Christ.

It is all in the 1st half of the TF:

a) 63 And there is about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is necessary to say that he is a man; [the advent]

b) for he was a doer of miraculous works, a teacher of men who receive true things with pleasure, [miracles wrought & acts done respectively]

c) and many Jews, and also many of the Greek element, he led to himself;

d) this man was the Christ. [by Christ]

It seems Photius he took the TF for granted, as he criticizes Justas of Tiberius for omitting what was "most necessary to be related." However, why would it be more likely he did/didn't read it in Josephus versus Eusebius?

DCH

There is something wrong with what you claim.

Josephus wrote NOTHING about the ADVENT of Jesus Christ.

Josephus did NOT write about any ACTS of Jesus.

Josephus did NOT claim Jesus healed the deaf, dumb, blind or raised the dead.

By the time Photius wrote there would have been the Gospel stories that mentioned the ADVENT, ACTS and MIRACLES of Jesus.

It is ILLOGICAL to claim Photius mentioned the TF when there were other sources that would have contained the ADVENT, ACTS and MIRACLES of Jesus.

DCHindley · 09-20-2011, 08:59 PM

You must have a hard-on for me. Yes? :dancy:

DCH

Quote:

Originally Posted by aa5874

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

....But he does. It is here:

Ca. 860 CE. Photius Bibliotheca/Myriobiblon/Codices book 33.

I have read the Chronicle of Justus of Tiberias. He omits the greatest part of what was most necessary to be related; but, as infected with Jewish prejudices, being also himself a Jew by birth, he makes no mention at all of the advent, or of the acts done, or of the miracles wrought, by Christ.

It is all in the 1st half of the TF:

a) 63 And there is about this time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is necessary to say that he is a man; [the advent]

b) for he was a doer of miraculous works, a teacher of men who receive true things with pleasure, [miracles wrought & acts done respectively]

c) and many Jews, and also many of the Greek element, he led to himself;

d) this man was the Christ. [by Christ]

It seems Photius he took the TF for granted, as he criticizes Justas of Tiberius for omitting what was "most necessary to be related." However, why would it be more likely he did/didn't read it in Josephus versus Eusebius?

DCH

There is something wrong with what you claim.

Josephus wrote NOTHING about the ADVENT of Jesus Christ.

Josephus did NOT write about any ACTS of Jesus.

Josephus did NOT claim Jesus healed the deaf, dumb, blind or raised the dead.

By the time Photius wrote there would have been the Gospel stories that mentioned the ADVENT, ACTS and MIRACLES of Jesus.

It is ILLOGICAL to claim Photius mentioned the TF when there were other sources that would have contained the ADVENT, ACTS and MIRACLES of Jesus.

aa5874 · 09-20-2011, 09:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCHindley

You must have a hard-on for me.....

Let us not get distracted.

Your claims are illogical that is all.

The TF does NOT mention the Advent, Acts and Miracles of the supposed Jesus.

Vorkosigan · 09-20-2011, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think this implies that Josephus found a reference to the death of Jesus in the section of Antiquities dealing with the rule of Herod the Tetrarch ie the early chapters of Book 18.

Andrew Criddle

You mean Photius, I hope. Otherwise you've made a notable advance in Josephean scholarship!

TedM · 09-21-2011, 08:05 AM

Thanks Andrew.

Google won't give me that page following Whealey's explanation, so I"m not sure if I am seeing it all, but Whealey says that we know that in the Theophania Eusebius recycled material from the earlier DE 'without significant revision'. That would seem to the the issue: did he revise that part? There is no earlier reference to the TF to point to, and while the DE is more positive, the Theophania is more Josephan. Since the TF was so important to Eusebius, he 'could have' been motivated to change it, and it alone, in the recycled material.

I would now argue that it would have made no sense to put in a Josephan phrase in order to be cleverly deceptive while keeping the "He was the Christ" phrase. To me, that is the most persuasive argument against Eusebius having made such a change. Don't know why that didn't occur to me the other day..

Ted

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Hi Ted
Alice Whealey argues, in the very interesting article you referenced earlier, that SEBOMENWN in the DE is probably not what Eusebius wrote but a copyist's correction. Apparently the Syriac Theophania goes back to a Greek hHDONHi DECOMENWN and the Theophania here is following the DE.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle · 09-21-2011, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vorkosigan

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

I think this implies that Josephus found a reference to the death of Jesus in the section of Antiquities dealing with the rule of Herod the Tetrarch ie the early chapters of Book 18.

Andrew Criddle

You mean Photius, I hope. Otherwise you've made a notable advance in Josephean scholarship!

Thanks Vorkosigan

I did mean Photius, sorry.

Andrew Criddle

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.