Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 04-06-2004, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rlogan

Thank you Layman, and thank you Peter.

This TF area is supercool.

Let's look at that Whiston translation from Ambrose. But first, what Hindley says about Whiston:

"Bear in mind that Whiston sometimes condenses or paraphrases passages without making note of it."

Here goes:

The Jews themselves also bear witness to Christ, as appears by Josephus, the writer of their history, who says thus: That there was at that time a wise man, if, says he, it be lawful to have him called a man; a doer of wonderful works, who appeared to his disciples after the third day from his death alive again, according to the writings of the prophets, who fore. told these, and innumerable other miraculous events concerning him; from whom began the congregation of Christians, and hath penetrated among all sorts of men; nor does there remain any nation in the Roman world, which continues strangers to his religion. If the Jews do not believe us, let them at least believe their own writers. Josephus, whom they esteem a very great man, hath said this, and yet hath he spoken truth after such a manner, and so far was his mind wandered from the right way, that even he was not a believer, as to what he himself said; but thus he spoke, in order to deliver historical truth, because he thought it not lawful for him to deceive, while yet he was no believer, because of the hardness of his heart and his perfidious intention. However, it was no prejudice to the truth that he was not a believer; but this adds more weight to his testimony, that while he was an unbeliever, and unwilling this should be true, he has not denied it to be so.

Can there be little doubt that this is a paraphrase? The interjections disqualify it as a quote. But he's scrambled it up too.

scrambled TF and ham...

edited to add: could be ambrose, could be both doing the paraphrasing

Of course there can be little doubt that this is paraphrased because Ambrose himself was paraphrasing. Here is my discussion of the passage:

Quote:

Ambrose has cited from the TF every positive statement about Jesus to use in his argument that Jesus was divine. He notes that Jesus was wise, recites the "if it is lawful" reference, notes that he did "wonderful works," and records that he "appeared to his disciples" and that he did many other miraculous things. However, Ambrose completely fails to note that Josephus claimed that Jesus was the Christ. In fact, he seems to understand that Josephus was clearly an unbeliever. It is very unlikely that Ambrose would have ignored such a strong attestation of Jesus -- if it existed in his manuscript. Clearly, his manuscript did not contain that phrase (though it is possible that he would leave out a statement that "he was called the Christ" because it implied disbelief). Therefore, this citation of the TF strongly suggests that within 30 years of Eusebius' writings, there existed a Greek manuscript tradition of Antiquities that omitted the phrase "he was the Christ."

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

rlogan · 04-06-2004, 10:45 PM

I see, thank you Layman. I would have understood better had I seen the Ambrose thing first.

I have two things to say then. The first is that we need to see the writing itself.

But I think too that since his very thesis is that the Jews "bear witness to Christ", and since his evidence is Josephus, that this is implied. The latter portion of the passage also bears that out. Josephus is an "unbeliever". I take that to mean with respect to Christ.

Peter Kirby · 04-07-2004, 12:24 AM

Hello,

I tried looking up this passage from Ambrose on my CD of writings from the Latin church fathers. I couldn't find it. I did find a notice of it in Paget's lengthy "Josephus and Christianity" article. It is in a book called "De Excidio" (specifically 2.12.1). Paget quotes the sentence "Si nobis non credunt Iudaei, vel suis credant" (If the Jews do not believe us, let them at least believe their own writers). So the passage exists, but we don't know the exact Latin wording. It is likely available in Migne's Patrologia Latinae for those who care.

Finding Jerome's passage was a bit easier. Here it is.

Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus
Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 1[*]
scripsit autem et alios uiginti antiquitatum libros ab exordio mundi usque
ad quartum decimum annum domitiani caesaris, et duos g-archaiotêtos
aduersum appionem grammaticum alexandrinum, qui sub caligula legatus
missus ex parte gentilium contra philonem etiam librum uituperationem
gentis iudaicae continentem scripserat.
Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus
Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 6[*]
alius quoque liber eius qui inscribitur g-peri g-autokratoros g-logismou,
ualde elegans habetur, in quo et macchabaeorum sunt digesta martyria.
Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus
Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 10[*]
hic in octauo decimo antiquitatum libro manifestissime confitetur propter
magnitudinem signorum christum a pharisaeis interfectum, et iohannem
baptistam uere prophetam fuisse, et propter interfectionem iacobi apostoli
hierosolymam dirutam.
Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus
Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 14[*]
scripsit autem de domino in hunc modum, 'eodem tempore fuit iesus, sapiens
uir, si tamen uirum eum oportet dicere.
Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus
Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 15[*]
erat enim mirabilium patrator operum et doctor eorum qui libenter uera
suscipiunt, plurimos quoque tam de iudaeis quam de gentibus, sui habuit
sectatores et credebatur esse christus.
Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus
Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 18[*]
cum que inuidia nostrorum principum, cruci eum pilatus adfixisset,
nihilominus qui primum dilexerant, perseuerarunt.
Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus
Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 20[*]
apparuit enim eis tertia die uiuens, multa, et haec et alia mirabilia
carminibus prophetarum de eo uaticinantibus et usque hodie christianorum
gens, ab hoc sortita uocabulum non defecit'.
Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus
Cl. 0616 , cap. : 14, pag. : 16, linea : 25[*]
iustus tiberiensis de prouincia galileae, conatus est et ipse iudaicarum
rerum historiam texere et quosdam commentariolos de scripturis.
Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus
Cl. 0616 , cap. : 14, pag. : 16, linea : 27[*]
sed hunc iosephus arguit mendacii.
Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus
Cl. 0616 , cap. : 14, pag. : 16, linea : 27[*]
constat autem illum eodem tempore scripsisse quo et iosephum.

best,
Peter Kirby

rlogan · 04-07-2004, 12:46 AM

Here's Whealey:

http://josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf

So Jerome was 70 years after Eusebius.

AHAH!! I see Peter has come to the rescue.

Thank You Peter!

Vinnie · 04-07-2004, 09:05 AM

Price: "The surviving Greek manuscripts and all three of Eusebius' references to the TF declare that "he was the Christ." However, there is persuasive evidence that manuscripts independent of Eusebius' contained the TF. The most telling feature of the other manuscript tradition is that it did not contain the phrase "he was the Christ." Rather, it merely stated that "he was called the Christ." "

Whealey: "Christian Semitic sources brought to light was not the Arabic paraphrase of the Testimonium that he proposed was more authentic than the textus receptus, but the literal Syriac translation of the Testimonium that is quoted in a twelfth century chronicle compiled by the Syrian Patriarch of
Antioch (1166-1199).22 It is this version of the Testimonium, not the Arabic paraphrase of it, that has the greatest likelihood of being, at least in some ways, more authentic than the textus receptus Testimonium because, as noted earlier, this version of the text agrees with Jerome’s Latin version of the text in the same crucial regard. The medieval Syriac Testimonium that Pines uncovered is very strong evidence for what many scholars had argued since birth of the controversy over the text in the Renaissance, namely that Jerome did not alter the Testimonium Flavianum to read “he was believed to be the Christ�? but rather that he in fact knew the original version of the Testimonium, which he probably found in Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, which read “he was believed to be the Christ�? rather than “he was the Christ.�?

What does Eusebius' texts have? He was the Christ or He Was believed to be the Christ?

Vinnie

Layman · 04-07-2004, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

What does Eusebius' texts have? He was the Christ or He Was believed to be the Christ?

Vinnie

Eusebius quotes the TF three times, each with variations. Some scholars have actually taken this diversity to indicate that Eusebius himself had different manuscripts of Josephus. But in all three I have reviewed, they affirm that Jesus was Christ.

From the Proof of the Gospel:

Quote:

And Jesus arises at that time, a wise man, if it is befitting to call him a man. For he was a doer of no common works, a teacher of men who reverence truth. And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the Greek race. This was Christus; and when Pilate condemned him to the Cross on the information of our rulers, his first followers did not cease to revere him. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having foretold this, and very many other things about him. And from that time to this the tribe of the Christians has not failed.

From Church History:

Quote:

About the same time, there was a certain Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it is proper to call him a man. For he was a performer of extraordinary deeds; a teacher of men, that received his doctrine with delight; and he attached to himself many of the Jews, many also of the Greeks. This was Christ. Pilate having inflicted the punishment of the cross upon him, on the accusation of our principal men, those who had been attached to him before did not, however, afterwards cease to love him: for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, according to the holy prophets, who had declared these and innumerable other wonderful things respecting him. THe reace of the Christians, who derive their name from him, likewise still continues.

From the Theophany:

Quote:

At this period then was Jesus, a wise man, if it be right to call Him a man; for He was the doer of |330 wonderful works, and the Teacher of those men who, with pleasure, received Him in truth. And He brought together many (both) of the Jews, and many of the profane (Gentiles). And this was the Messiah (Christ). And, when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal ancient men among ourselves, laid on Him the punishment of the Cross, those who formerly loved Him were not reduced to silence. For He appeared again to them, on the third day, alive: things which, with many others, the Prophets had said respecting Him : so that from thence, and even until now, the race of the Christians has not been wanting to Him.

Layman · 04-07-2004, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vinnie

What does Eusebius' texts have? He was the Christ or He Was believed to be the Christ?

Vinnie

If Whealey is saying that Eusebius and Jerome say the same thing here, it could be that my English translation is flawed. If Eusebius' Church History states "credebatur esse Christus" I would have to modify that section of my article.

The Eusebius translation I have on hand was published by Baker Book House, 1990. Translated by Isaac Boyle.

spin · 04-07-2004, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Layman

Eusebius quotes the TF three times, each with variations. Some scholars have actually taken this diversity to indicate that Eusebius himself had different manuscripts of Josephus. But in all three I have reviewed, they affirm that Jesus was Christ.

Could you supply references when citing, please?

Thanks,

spin

spin · 04-07-2004, 10:32 AM

Just for clarity's sake the two references to Jesus now contained in the AJ treat the idea of christ differently:

1. 18.3.3: o xristos outos hn -- he was the Christ

2. 20.9.1: ihsou tou legomenou Christou -- Jesus called the Christ (this is the same phrase found in Mt 1:16, ihsous o legomenos Christos; there are in fact another 40 examples of legomenos indicating simply "called" in the nt)

The first is the TF. The second is that which contains the phrase "Jesus called the Christ".

spin

rlogan · 04-07-2004, 09:14 PM

Duh. There are simply too many or no translations for the latin words in the text Peter put up. (I tried an online translator).

So if anyone can do that for us I'd appreciate it. The question is if it is a significantly different TF than what we know from the Eusebius TF.

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

04-06-2004, 10:45 PM	#22
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	I see, thank you Layman. I would have understood better had I seen the Ambrose thing first. I have two things to say then. The first is that we need to see the writing itself. But I think too that since his very thesis is that the Jews "bear witness to Christ", and since his evidence is Josephus, that this is implied. The latter portion of the passage also bears that out. Josephus is an "unbeliever". I take that to mean with respect to Christ.

04-07-2004, 12:24 AM	#23
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Hello, I tried looking up this passage from Ambrose on my CD of writings from the Latin church fathers. I couldn't find it. I did find a notice of it in Paget's lengthy "Josephus and Christianity" article. It is in a book called "De Excidio" (specifically 2.12.1). Paget quotes the sentence "Si nobis non credunt Iudaei, vel suis credant" (If the Jews do not believe us, let them at least believe their own writers). So the passage exists, but we don't know the exact Latin wording. It is likely available in Migne's Patrologia Latinae for those who care. Finding Jerome's passage was a bit easier. Here it is. Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 1[] scripsit autem et alios uiginti antiquitatum libros ab exordio mundi usque ad quartum decimum annum domitiani caesaris, et duos g-archaiotêtos aduersum appionem grammaticum alexandrinum, qui sub caligula legatus missus ex parte gentilium contra philonem etiam librum uituperationem gentis iudaicae continentem scripserat. Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 6[] alius quoque liber eius qui inscribitur g-peri g-autokratoros g-logismou, ualde elegans habetur, in quo et macchabaeorum sunt digesta martyria. Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 10[] hic in octauo decimo antiquitatum libro manifestissime confitetur propter magnitudinem signorum christum a pharisaeis interfectum, et iohannem baptistam uere prophetam fuisse, et propter interfectionem iacobi apostoli hierosolymam dirutam. Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 14[] scripsit autem de domino in hunc modum, 'eodem tempore fuit iesus, sapiens uir, si tamen uirum eum oportet dicere. Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 15[] erat enim mirabilium patrator operum et doctor eorum qui libenter uera suscipiunt, plurimos quoque tam de iudaeis quam de gentibus, sui habuit sectatores et credebatur esse christus. Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 18[] cum que inuidia nostrorum principum, cruci eum pilatus adfixisset, nihilominus qui primum dilexerant, perseuerarunt. Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus Cl. 0616 , cap. : 13, pag. : 16, linea : 20[] apparuit enim eis tertia die uiuens, multa, et haec et alia mirabilia carminibus prophetarum de eo uaticinantibus et usque hodie christianorum gens, ab hoc sortita uocabulum non defecit'. Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus Cl. 0616 , cap. : 14, pag. : 16, linea : 25[] iustus tiberiensis de prouincia galileae, conatus est et ipse iudaicarum rerum historiam texere et quosdam commentariolos de scripturis. Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus Cl. 0616 , cap. : 14, pag. : 16, linea : 27[] sed hunc iosephus arguit mendacii. Hieronymus - De uiris inlustribus Cl. 0616 , cap. : 14, pag. : 16, linea : 27[] constat autem illum eodem tempore scripsisse quo et iosephum. best, Peter Kirby

04-07-2004, 12:46 AM	#24
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Here's Whealey: http://josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf So Jerome was 70 years after Eusebius. AHAH!! I see Peter has come to the rescue. Thank You Peter!

04-07-2004, 09:05 AM	#25
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Price: "The surviving Greek manuscripts and all three of Eusebius' references to the TF declare that "he was the Christ." However, there is persuasive evidence that manuscripts independent of Eusebius' contained the TF. The most telling feature of the other manuscript tradition is that it did not contain the phrase "he was the Christ." Rather, it merely stated that "he was called the Christ." " Whealey: "Christian Semitic sources brought to light was not the Arabic paraphrase of the Testimonium that he proposed was more authentic than the textus receptus, but the literal Syriac translation of the Testimonium that is quoted in a twelfth century chronicle compiled by the Syrian Patriarch of Antioch (1166-1199).22 It is this version of the Testimonium, not the Arabic paraphrase of it, that has the greatest likelihood of being, at least in some ways, more authentic than the textus receptus Testimonium because, as noted earlier, this version of the text agrees with Jerome’s Latin version of the text in the same crucial regard. The medieval Syriac Testimonium that Pines uncovered is very strong evidence for what many scholars had argued since birth of the controversy over the text in the Renaissance, namely that Jerome did not alter the Testimonium Flavianum to read “he was believed to be the Christ�? but rather that he in fact knew the original version of the Testimonium, which he probably found in Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, which read “he was believed to be the Christ�? rather than “he was the Christ.�? What does Eusebius' texts have? He was the Christ or He Was believed to be the Christ? Vinnie

04-07-2004, 10:32 AM	#29
spin Contributor Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: nowhere Posts: 15,747	Just for clarity's sake the two references to Jesus now contained in the AJ treat the idea of christ differently: 1. 18.3.3: o xristos outos hn -- he was the Christ 2. 20.9.1: ihsou tou legomenou Christou -- Jesus called the Christ (this is the same phrase found in Mt 1:16, ihsous o legomenos Christos; there are in fact another 40 examples of legomenos indicating simply "called" in the nt) The first is the TF. The second is that which contains the phrase "Jesus called the Christ". spin

04-07-2004, 09:14 PM	#30
rlogan Banned Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Alaska Posts: 9,159	Duh. There are simply too many or no translations for the latin words in the text Peter put up. (I tried an online translator). So if anyone can do that for us I'd appreciate it. The question is if it is a significantly different TF than what we know from the Eusebius TF.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.