Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Layman · 06-03-2002, 02:10 PM

I'm beginning to post my comments on Peter Kirby's article on the Testinomium Flavianum. I begin by discussing his comments on four of the "Arguments that the Testimonium is Spurious." I skipped Arguments 1 and 4 because I agree with Kirby that they lend no support to the complete interpolation theory.

Before beginning, I just want to add that I thought Kirby's discussion was a very good, thorough treatment of the issue.

Quote:

2.It is often argued that the description of Jesus is unusually short for Josephus. For example, Josephus devotes over twice as much space to the description of John the Baptist. Although suggestive, this argument is not conclusive. Professor Sanders considers this passage to be "the best objective evidence of the importance of Jesus during his own lifetime. The gospels create the impression that the entire populace was vitally interested in Jesus and what happened to him. Certainly he did attract attention. But if we measure the general impact of prophetic figures by the degree of disturbance they caused, we shall conclude that Jesus was less important in the eyes of most of his contemporaries than were John the Baptist and the Egyptian..." (pp. 50-51)"

I'm not sure how it was established that the passage regarding Jesus is "unusually short." Is this simply a breakdown of the chapter and versus in Josephus? Or is study of the length of every description of a person in Josephus? I am curious, because it is clear that Josephus has many short passages.

Nor am I sure how the shortness of the passage about Jesus is supposed to indicate that the TF is a complete forgery. It seems to me that a Christian who was creating out of wholeclothe a reference to what would be in his opinion the most important figure in Jewish history, he would make sure that it was at least as long as the Josephan passage re: John the Baptist. Indeed, in one instance where we know that a Christian scribe invented a reference to Jesus (the Slavonic passage) out of wholeclothe and inserted it into a writing of Josephus (Jewish War 2.9.2), he wrote a lengthy, somewhat rambling, account of much of Jesus' ministry as passed on in the Gospels.

As to Sanders' point, it is entirely possible that the Gospels embellished the level of interest in Jesus. It's also possible that Josephus' estimation of Jesus' importance was simply different than the Gospels.

Whatever the case may be, I see nothing about the size of the TF that supports in any way the idea that it's a forgery.

Quote:

3.Earl Doherty argues: "In the section on Pilate in the earlier Jewish War, written in the 70s, Josephus outlines the same two incidents with which he began chapter 3 of Book 18 in the Antiquities of the Jews, incidents which caused tumult in Judea during the governorship of Pilate. In the Antiquities, these descriptions are immediately followed by the Testimonium about Jesus. In Jewish War (2.9/169-177) no mention of Jesus is included." (p. 222) This is also suggestive but inconclusive. Robert Grant notes that "none of them [John the Baptist, James, or Jesus] is to be found in the parallel passages in his earlier War; presumably Christians had become more important in the interval." (p. 291)

I disagree with the idea that Josephus' failure to refer to Jesus in Jewish War is even "suggestive" of the idea that the TF is a completely interpolation. The two works, though sharing the same author, are very different in scope and breadth. In fact, I think we would be surprised if Josephus had bothered to mention Jesus in Jewish War.

As Professsor R.T. France states:

"His Jewish War, written shortly after the event, and based to a large extent on his own experience, begins with a sketch of Jewish history from the Maccabaean period, before focusing for the bulk of its seven books on the events of the years AD 66-73. This is not, therefore, such a likely place to look for references to Jesus.... But Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews is a more ambitious if less carefully researched work, covering the whole period from the creation to AD 66, and devoting no less than six of its twenty books to the century from the reign of Herod the Great to AD 66. Surely in such a detailed history of the period in which Jesus lived we might reasonably expect to find him mentioned, if he made even a small mark on the history of his people." R.T. France, The Evidence for Jesus, at 25

Jewish War focused on the history of the Jewish War. Antiquities focused on the history of the Jewish people.

Nor is this difference contrived. Many events mentioned in Antiquities are not mentioned in Jewish War. As Kirby points out, neither John the Baptist nor James--although described in Antiquities--are mentioned in JW. And since, more space is given to discussing John the Baptist and James than Jesus, it's not surprising that Jesus would likewise not be mentioned in Jewish War. Additionally, there are other events mentioned in the New Testament and Antiquities that were not mentioned in Jewish War, such as the Famine during the days of Claudius and the account of the sudden death of Herod Agrippa I. The pharisees, also, play a much more limited role in the JW than they do in Jewish Antiquities, despite the fact that Josephus was writing about the same time frame.

Accordingly, it is likely that Josephus simply did not believe that these persons and events were as relevant to the history of the Jewish War (or his apologetic purposes) as they were to the history of the Jewish people.

Finally, Doherty's point that the two references to Pilate preceding the reference to Jesus are in Jewish War and Antiquities, while the reference to Jesus is not in Jewish War, is irrelevant. As discussed above, Pilate's actions can be seen as contributing to the Jewish uprising. Additonally, the two passages in Chapter 18 that follow the two Pilate and Jesus passages in Antiquities are not to be found following the two Pilate passages in Jewish War. It seems that Josephus did not find them particularly relevant to Jewish War (or fitting with his apologetic purpose at that time), whereas he did find them relevant to a history of the Jewish people.

Quote:

5.R. Joseph Hoffmann notes: "Further, the language used to describe John is very close to the language used to describe Jesus, leading some to theorize that the original version of the Antiquities carried no reference to Jesus at all." (p. 54)

I have just the opposite reaction as Mr. Kirby and Mr. Hoffman. To someone like Josephus, Jesus and John would be similar types of figures deserving similar description. They gathered disciples and were popular with the people. Despite their popularity, they lead no revolt, but were executed anyway--because, apparently, their popularity itself was a political threat.

Professor Van Voorst believes that the similar tone about John and Jesus supports the "neutral" reconstruction of the TF:

"Josephus' report on John is also a descriptive treatment of a popular religious movement with political implications. Josephus depicts John as a good man who attracted large crowds by his teaching, as Jesus did. John, like Jesus, leads a reform movement within Judaism. Also, both leaders are killed unjustly, John on the suspicion that he might lead a popular revolt against Herod. Differences also exist, of course. John did not work miracles, the Romans are not involved [although there client King is], and Josephus does not indicate that his movement continues. Nevertheless, that Josephus can write sympathetically about a controversial figure like John the Baptizer indicates that he could write a neutral description about Jesus as well." Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament.

The similarity of language is most understandable if the author had an equivalent view of Jesus and John. It becomes much more difficult to justify if we suppose that the author of the Jesus passage was a Christians. Christians were more concerned in establishing the superiority of Jesus over John rather than portraying them as equivalent.

Quote:

In Ecclesiastical History 1.11, Eusebius writes: "After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words..." This suggests the possibility that the Testimonium was inserted in some manuscripts after the passage concerning John.

This is an interesting argument.

First, I'm not sure that this reading of Eusebius gives us an assurance that there was an edition of Josephus that had the TF following the John the Baptist passage. There certainly is not any manuscript evidence that TF followed the John the Baptist passage.

Second, even if there was such a manucsript, I don't see how it suggests that the TF is a forgery rather than an embellished account. Indeed, this seems to strengthen the argument of those who favor authenticity. They often point out that a Christian scribe would have been expected to link the account of John the Baptist with Jesus. Josephus seems completely ignorant of any connection. If Eusebius did have a version of the TF placed near the reference to John, it's just as likely an explanation that a scribe (or Eusebius) had moved the reference to a more suitable place in light of the strong Christian association of Jesus with John the Baptist.

Quote:

6.Louis H. Feldman writes (Josephus, Judaism and Christianity, p. 57): "The fact that an ancient table of contents, already referred to in the Latin version of the fifth or sixth century, omits mention of the Testimionium (though, admittedly, it is selective, one must find it hard to believe that such a remarkable passage would be omitted by anyone, let alone by a Christian, summarizing the work) is further indication that there was no such notice..." I regard this as an important and powerful piece of evidence, although one that doesn't get much attention.

I have to admit to not being familiar with this one.

However, the interpolation must have been made and popularized no later than the time of Eusebius, in the Fourth Century. How likely is it that Christians were translating Greek accounts of Josephus that lacked the TF if Eusebius had so clearly written about it a couple of hundred years earlier?

Additionally, not having seen the table of contents, I would be curious to know how it was arranged. By Chapters? Books? Events? Did it break down into paragraphs? Is there somewhere online that I can review this table of contents?

Peter Kirby · 06-03-2002, 07:51 PM

Layman writes:

I'm beginning to post my comments on Peter Kirby's article on the Testinomium Flavianum. I begin by discussing his comments on four of the "Arguments that the Testimonium is Spurious." I skipped Arguments 1 and 4 because I agree with Kirby that they lend no support to the complete interpolation theory.

Before beginning, I just want to add that I thought Kirby's discussion was a very good, thorough treatment of the issue.

OK, but don't forget the thirteenth argument, the suggestion made by Lowder that the burden of proof may be on the proponent of partial authenticity. Hopefully you will also talk about the arguments for partial authenticity.

Layman writes:

I'm not sure how it was established that the passage regarding Jesus is "unusually short." Is this simply a breakdown of the chapter and versus in Josephus? Or is study of the length of every description of a person in Josephus? I am curious, because it is clear that Josephus has many short passages.

Since you can cut up a 'passage' or a 'chapter' in any way you please (the only divisions original to Josephus are books), obviously it is purely arbitrary to say that passages in Josephus are either short or long. So, no, that is not what is meant. What is meant is that the treatment given to Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum is shorter than the treatment given to other figures in Josephus in the same period such as John the Baptist, the Egyptian, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, Jesus son of Ananias, and Honi the Circle Drawer.

I should be doing this in Greek, but that would take me forever, and for the purposes of merely estimating comparative lengths English will suffice.

John the Baptist - Ant. 18.5.2 - 260 English words

The Egyptian - Ant. 20.8.6 - 206 English words

Theudas - Ant. 20.5.1 - 139 English words

Judas the Galilean - Ant. 18.1.1 - 153 English words

Jesus son of Ananias - Wars 6.5.3 - 531 English words

Honi the Circle-Drawer - Ant. 14.2.1 - 201 English words

So it seems that it could be said that Josephus wrote an average of 191.8 words per figure described in the Jewish Antiquities. The reconstructed Testimonium contains 88 English words. Does this mean that Josephus did not write a short note about Jesus the Galilean? Maybe not. The story of Jesus son of Ananias is aberrational (in being long), so perhaps the length of the mention of Jesus the Galilean is also aberrational (in being short) yet authentic.

I recognize this possibility, and I always have, which is why I quote Sanders for the refutation. Josephus may not have written much about Jesus the Galilean because Josephus didn't think Jesus was all that important. So this argument falls in the class of arguments that I am willing to explain but do not fully support.

Layman writes:

Nor am I sure how the shortness of the passage about Jesus is supposed to indicate that the TF is a complete forgery. It seems to me that a Christian who was creating out of wholeclothe a reference to what would be in his opinion the most important figure in Jewish history, he would make sure that it was at least as long as the Josephan passage re: John the Baptist.

This is an argument for authenticity that was present in a previous draft of the article but was removed (it was also in the context of refuting the argument from short length).

The difficulty with the argument is that it does not proceed on the same pattern as the argument from short length (which, besides, I do not support anyway). The argument from short length takes known instances of the length of description made by Josephus and argues inductively for a typical length of Josephus' descriptions, in which the reconstructed Testimonium is aberrational. (The counter to this is that the passage may be aberrational in length yet authentic.) Yet, unless we know exactly who the forger is and can compare the Testimonium with his known descriptions, the argument is not parallel, because there are no known samples from which to draw an inductive argument for the practice of the forger. If we think that the Testimonium must have been forged by Eusebius if it were inauthentic, even then it is entirely possible that the forger would be aberrational in his forgery as opposed to his regular writing. So there really is no basis for arguing that the forger would have written a longer description in the Testimonium.

The reply could also be made that the interpolator - and we know there was one - could have reworked the Testimonium to be of greater length but did not. So, it could be said that the shortness of the Testimonium is a mystery for both partial inauthenticity and full inauthenticity.

Layman writes: Whatever the case may be, I see nothing about the size of the TF that supports in any way the idea that it's a forgery.

That's fine, as this is not an argument that I care to defend.

Layman writes: Additonally, the two passages in Chapter 18 that follow the two Pilate and Jesus passages in Antiquities are not to be found following the two Pilate passages in Jewish War. It seems that Josephus did not find them particularly relevant to Jewish War (or fitting with his apologetic purpose at that time), whereas he did find them relevant to a history of the Jewish people.

Perhaps we ought to say that it is possible that Josephus did not find them to be relevant to the Jewish War but did find them relevant to the Jewish Antiquities, as we would not want to prejudice ourselves in favor of authenticity for the Testimonium. Another possibility is that Christianity had become more important in the interval between the Wars and the Antiquities, as Robert Grant suggests. I quoted Grant because I do not care to defend this argument myself. It is merely one of the arguments that I mention in my catalogue.

Layman writes: I have just the opposite reaction as Mr. Kirby and Mr. Hoffman.

But, then, I did not state a reaction. I made no comment at all on the argument made by Hoffman. Again, it is merely one of the arguments that I mention in my catalogue.

Layman writes: The similarity of language is most understandable if the author had an equivalent view of Jesus and John.

Wouldn't that depend on what the similarities of language are? Myself, I have not discovered any similarity between the Testimonium and the Baptist passage other than that both Jesus and John attracted the following of many. So I would not use the assumed similarity as an argument for either authenticity or inauthenticity. In your opinion, what exactly are the similarities of language between the accounts of Jesus and John?

Layman writes:

First, I'm not sure that this reading of Eusebius gives us an assurance that there was an edition of Josephus that had the TF following the John the Baptist passage. There certainly is not any manuscript evidence that TF followed the John the Baptist passage.

The oldest manuscript with the Testimonium dates to the eleventh century. So this is not that great of a point. You should just stick with saying that Eusebius does not give assurance thta there was an edition of Josephus that had the TF following the John the Baptist passage. With this, I would agree. Maybe Eusebius hadn't yet interpolated the passage into any manuscript. But other than that possibility, what do you think explains the statement of Eusebius? In Ecclesiastical History 1.11, Eusebius writes: "After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words..." Explain why Eusebius would have written that, assuming that the TF wasn't in a manuscript after the John the Baptist passage (and that the TF wasn't inserted by Eusebius).

Layman writes:

Second, even if there was such a manucsript, I don't see how it suggests that the TF is a forgery rather than an embellished account. Indeed, this seems to strengthen the argument of those who favor authenticity. They often point out that a Christian scribe would have been expected to link the account of John the Baptist with Jesus. Josephus seems completely ignorant of any connection. If Eusebius did have a version of the TF placed near the reference to John, it's just as likely an explanation that a scribe (or Eusebius) had moved the reference to a more suitable place in light of the strong Christian association of Jesus with John the Baptist.

Could you please explain how this reference from Eusebius seems to strengthen the argument of those who favor partial authenticity?

I only see an argument that the description of John the Baptist is not likely to have been forged, because John the Baptist is not linked with Jesus. With this I agree, and I do not dispute the authenticity of the Baptist passage.

Please explain why a scribe would have moved the passage from Ant. 18.3.3 to a place after John the Baptist while not making any connection to John in the Testimonium and while keeping the 'about this time' reference intact.

As it is, the evidence from this reference seems to suggest that the Testimonium Flavianum was something like a 'floating pericope' on the model of the woman taken in adultery.

Layman writes: However, the interpolation must have been made and popularized no later than the time of Eusebius, in the Fourth Century. How likely is it that Christians were translating Greek accounts of Josephus that lacked the TF if Eusebius had so clearly written about it a couple of hundred years earlier?

My magic eight ball says 'the chances are good'.

Seriously, even though I don't know much about the reception of the Testimonium after Jerome, I would like to point out that Eusebius is the only person extant in the fourth century to quote from the Testimonium Flavianum. After Eusebius, Jerome is the first one to quote the passage. While I am not using this as an argument for inauthenticity, it would suggest at least the plausibility that some manuscripts of the fifth or sixth centuries lacked the passage.

Layman writes: Additionally, not having seen the table of contents, I would be curious to know how it was arranged. By Chapters? Books? Events? Did it break down into paragraphs? Is there somewhere online that I can review this table of contents?

No, it is not online. All that I know about it was given in the quote from Feldman. Feldman is a bona fide Josephan scholar, but it would not be a bad thing to have the actual Latin table of contents available for our own personal review. I suggest, if you are interested in pursuing this, that you contact Feldman to find out where this table of contents may have been published.

Please realize that chapters and paragraphs are modern divisions of Josephus.

I look forward to your discussion of the rest of the article's contents.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 07-07-2002, 11:37 PM

Can we expect any further installments here?

best,
Peter Kirby

Kosh · 07-08-2002, 05:12 AM

Quote:

Honi the Circle Drawer

I want to live in a society with careers like that!

Kosh - Drawer of Circles. Has a nice ring to it!

Plus, I could then branch out into ovals and ellipses.

Peter Kirby · 07-20-2002, 07:03 PM

Layman, do you plan to make any further replies on this topic?

best,
Peter Kirby

Vinnie · 07-21-2002, 04:38 PM

Hey, Peter Kirby, what do you think of Goldberg's site? I noticed you linked it on your Flavius Josephus page.

Peter Kirby · 07-21-2002, 07:50 PM

ilgwamh writes: Hey, Peter Kirby, what do you think of Goldberg's site? I noticed you linked it on your Flavius Josephus page.

I link to a lot of sites. But, yeah, Goldberg's site has a lot of useful information.

Goldberg's big idea is that there was a short Christian document that was available both to Josephus for writing the Testimonium and to Luke for writing the Emmaus story.

Earl Doherty said that he had some issues with Goldberg's theory, but when I e-mailed him about it, Doherty had forgotten about his objection (it was a couple years after Doherty made the comment) and did not have the time at the moment to review Goldberg's site.

I haven't gone through Goldberg's site with a fine comb, nor have I read it in over a year, but here are a few things that stand out in my memory.

Goldberg does not address a theory that Luke was the one who interpolated the Testimonium. I do not put any stock in such a theory, but it would circumvent Goldberg's objection against interpolation that a person would have no reason to chance upon the Emmaus narrative when fashioning the Testimonium.

Goldberg does not address a theory that the person who interpolated the Testimonium had access to the Christian document posited by Goldberg. This would also circumvent Goldberg's objection against interpolation that a person would have no reason to chance upon the Emmaus narrative when fashioning the Testimonium.

Goldberg does not explain why Josephus would have copied or paraphrased a Christian document faithfully when giving an account of Jesus. One would expect that Josephus would have had his own views on the matter that would not best be expressed by a Christian creed/story.

I do not think that Goldberg has demonstrated a high enough incidence of verbal coincidence in order to demand the explanation of copying. Something like three consecutive words the same would be nice; such is the minimum for proving plagiarism in many cases.

Once I have enough data, I would like to incorprate Goldberg into my Testimonium article. Do you (or anyone else) have any thoughts on Goldberg's ideas?

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby · 07-21-2002, 08:45 PM

For those who don't know, my page on Josephus is here:

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html

Goldberg's web page is here:

http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htm

I look forward to any comments.

best,
Peter Kirby

Toto · 07-21-2002, 09:01 PM

I just read Goldberg's comparison of the passages in Josephus and in Luke, and he does make a compelling case that there is a parallel structure.

But I was also impressed with Ken Olsen's thesis that the passage in Josephus looks like what Eusebius would have placed there. If these are both true, what does that mean? That Eusebius inserted the passage into Josephus based on the passage in Luke? Why would he have chosen that passage in particular? Or did Eusebius write both passages?

Peter Kirby · 07-22-2002, 01:21 AM

Toto writes: I just read Goldberg's comparison of the passages in Josephus and in Luke, and he does make a compelling case that there is a parallel structure.

Could you say what you find compelling about it in your own words?

Toto writes: But I was also impressed with Ken Olsen's thesis that the passage in Josephus looks like what Eusebius would have placed there. If these are both true, what does that mean? That Eusebius inserted the passage into Josephus based on the passage in Luke? Why would he have chosen that passage in particular? Or did Eusebius write both passages?

We can rule out the idea that Eusebius wrote both passages. The p75 manuscript is dated to the third century, and its exemplar must be even older. Among many other passages, the extant p75 manuscript preserves 22:4 to 24:53. (Note: this means that the manuscript is damaged; it does not mean that the missing portions were interpolated.) You can find that info here:

http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html

It can be hard to read. Note that the ',' means that this is a chapter/verse separation, that the '-' means that the verses run from here to there, that the ';' means a jump to a different chapter, and that the '.' means that there is a break in the ms. but that it continues at the verses listed next in the same chapter.

Also, I am not aware of the kind of political power that a man such as Eusebius weilded. Without the undying support of the emperor himself, I do not know how anyone could have rounded up all of the thousands of copies of Luke in the fourth century so as to be sure that absolutely no manuscript down the line was copied from an unaffected manuscript. All of these thousands of copies would have to be partially destroyed and replaced, which would imply a tremendous drain on resources. I could imagine an interpolation into the NT of the second century propagating to all known mss., and I could imagine the few mss. of Josephus that start in the 11th c. being so affected by a fourth century interpolation, but my imagination stretches no further than this. (Of course, interpolations such as the Johannine comma took place in later ages, but we have textual evidence for these.)

And all this work for what? What does Eusebius really gain by interpolating the Emmaus narrative? A great opportunity for priests around the Empire to go - 'oh gee, look, there is this neat story in Luke that I have never read at the pulpit before, I wonder how it got there?' This is a memorable and moderately lengthy story, and it could not have been interpolated in the fourth century without being noticed. Not many read Josephus, but the same could not be said of Luke. And what could Eusebius expect when his opponents found out, and wouldn't the issue have left reverberations somewhere in the voluminous patristic literature of the fourth and fifth centuries? And how do we know that Eusebius had this much power in the first place? And what again was the motive for inserting this quaint story that has nothing to do with the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century?

I know that the idea was just a suggestion, but it was not a very good one at that. Please excuse me for the rhetorical way in which I explain why I think so above. I am savage to the idea, but not to you, as you have my respect.

As to Goldberg, however. I myself do not support authenticity for the TF, but Goldberg does. Goldberg, however, overlooks a possibility on the authenticity hypothesis. Goldberg has posited a common little document, perhaps a single papyrus page, as the source behind the TF and the Emmaus story. But, then, Mason and others have argued that Luke knew Josephus. So who is to say that Luke has not modeled his Emmaus part after Josephus? This could also cast doubt on another part, which is Goldberg's idea that Josephus mentioned the resurrection. Obviously, if Josephus left out the resurrection, Luke would be sure to put it back in. This would preserve Goldberg's thesis that Josephus wrote a TF and also explain away the objection that Josephus probably wouldn't have just paraphrased a Christian source.

Of course, there would still be the problem of the arguments against the authenticity of any TF. Goldberg hasn't spent much time considering the objections that could come from someone who thinks that the TF was interpolated - such as, as I mentioned, that Luke could have been the interpolator.

But I do await an explanation of how we know exactly that there was copying between the TF and the Emmaus narrative.

best,
Peter Kirby

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

06-03-2002, 07:51 PM	#2
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Layman writes: I'm beginning to post my comments on Peter Kirby's article on the Testinomium Flavianum. I begin by discussing his comments on four of the "Arguments that the Testimonium is Spurious." I skipped Arguments 1 and 4 because I agree with Kirby that they lend no support to the complete interpolation theory. Before beginning, I just want to add that I thought Kirby's discussion was a very good, thorough treatment of the issue. OK, but don't forget the thirteenth argument, the suggestion made by Lowder that the burden of proof may be on the proponent of partial authenticity. Hopefully you will also talk about the arguments for partial authenticity. Layman writes: I'm not sure how it was established that the passage regarding Jesus is "unusually short." Is this simply a breakdown of the chapter and versus in Josephus? Or is study of the length of every description of a person in Josephus? I am curious, because it is clear that Josephus has many short passages. Since you can cut up a 'passage' or a 'chapter' in any way you please (the only divisions original to Josephus are books), obviously it is purely arbitrary to say that passages in Josephus are either short or long. So, no, that is not what is meant. What is meant is that the treatment given to Jesus in the Testimonium Flavianum is shorter than the treatment given to other figures in Josephus in the same period such as John the Baptist, the Egyptian, Theudas, Judas the Galilean, Jesus son of Ananias, and Honi the Circle Drawer. I should be doing this in Greek, but that would take me forever, and for the purposes of merely estimating comparative lengths English will suffice. John the Baptist - Ant. 18.5.2 - 260 English words The Egyptian - Ant. 20.8.6 - 206 English words Theudas - Ant. 20.5.1 - 139 English words Judas the Galilean - Ant. 18.1.1 - 153 English words Jesus son of Ananias - Wars 6.5.3 - 531 English words Honi the Circle-Drawer - Ant. 14.2.1 - 201 English words So it seems that it could be said that Josephus wrote an average of 191.8 words per figure described in the Jewish Antiquities. The reconstructed Testimonium contains 88 English words. Does this mean that Josephus did not write a short note about Jesus the Galilean? Maybe not. The story of Jesus son of Ananias is aberrational (in being long), so perhaps the length of the mention of Jesus the Galilean is also aberrational (in being short) yet authentic. I recognize this possibility, and I always have, which is why I quote Sanders for the refutation. Josephus may not have written much about Jesus the Galilean because Josephus didn't think Jesus was all that important. So this argument falls in the class of arguments that I am willing to explain but do not fully support. Layman writes: Nor am I sure how the shortness of the passage about Jesus is supposed to indicate that the TF is a complete forgery. It seems to me that a Christian who was creating out of wholeclothe a reference to what would be in his opinion the most important figure in Jewish history, he would make sure that it was at least as long as the Josephan passage re: John the Baptist. This is an argument for authenticity that was present in a previous draft of the article but was removed (it was also in the context of refuting the argument from short length). The difficulty with the argument is that it does not proceed on the same pattern as the argument from short length (which, besides, I do not support anyway). The argument from short length takes known instances of the length of description made by Josephus and argues inductively for a typical length of Josephus' descriptions, in which the reconstructed Testimonium is aberrational. (The counter to this is that the passage may be aberrational in length yet authentic.) Yet, unless we know exactly who the forger is and can compare the Testimonium with his known descriptions, the argument is not parallel, because there are no known samples from which to draw an inductive argument for the practice of the forger. If we think that the Testimonium must have been forged by Eusebius if it were inauthentic, even then it is entirely possible that the forger would be aberrational in his forgery as opposed to his regular writing. So there really is no basis for arguing that the forger would have written a longer description in the Testimonium. The reply could also be made that the interpolator - and we know there was one - could have reworked the Testimonium to be of greater length but did not. So, it could be said that the shortness of the Testimonium is a mystery for both partial inauthenticity and full inauthenticity. Layman writes: Whatever the case may be, I see nothing about the size of the TF that supports in any way the idea that it's a forgery. That's fine, as this is not an argument that I care to defend. Layman writes: Additonally, the two passages in Chapter 18 that follow the two Pilate and Jesus passages in Antiquities are not to be found following the two Pilate passages in Jewish War. It seems that Josephus did not find them particularly relevant to Jewish War (or fitting with his apologetic purpose at that time), whereas he did find them relevant to a history of the Jewish people. Perhaps we ought to say that it is possible that Josephus did not find them to be relevant to the Jewish War but did find them relevant to the Jewish Antiquities, as we would not want to prejudice ourselves in favor of authenticity for the Testimonium. Another possibility is that Christianity had become more important in the interval between the Wars and the Antiquities, as Robert Grant suggests. I quoted Grant because I do not care to defend this argument myself. It is merely one of the arguments that I mention in my catalogue. Layman writes: I have just the opposite reaction as Mr. Kirby and Mr. Hoffman. But, then, I did not state a reaction. I made no comment at all on the argument made by Hoffman. Again, it is merely one of the arguments that I mention in my catalogue. Layman writes: The similarity of language is most understandable if the author had an equivalent view of Jesus and John. Wouldn't that depend on what the similarities of language are? Myself, I have not discovered any similarity between the Testimonium and the Baptist passage other than that both Jesus and John attracted the following of many. So I would not use the assumed similarity as an argument for either authenticity or inauthenticity. In your opinion, what exactly are the similarities of language between the accounts of Jesus and John? Layman writes: First, I'm not sure that this reading of Eusebius gives us an assurance that there was an edition of Josephus that had the TF following the John the Baptist passage. There certainly is not any manuscript evidence that TF followed the John the Baptist passage. The oldest manuscript with the Testimonium dates to the eleventh century. So this is not that great of a point. You should just stick with saying that Eusebius does not give assurance thta there was an edition of Josephus that had the TF following the John the Baptist passage. With this, I would agree. Maybe Eusebius hadn't yet interpolated the passage into any manuscript. But other than that possibility, what do you think explains the statement of Eusebius? In Ecclesiastical History 1.11, Eusebius writes: "After relating these things concerning John, he makes mention of our Saviour in the same work, in the following words..." Explain why Eusebius would have written that, assuming that the TF wasn't in a manuscript after the John the Baptist passage (and that the TF wasn't inserted by Eusebius). Layman writes: Second, even if there was such a manucsript, I don't see how it suggests that the TF is a forgery rather than an embellished account. Indeed, this seems to strengthen the argument of those who favor authenticity. They often point out that a Christian scribe would have been expected to link the account of John the Baptist with Jesus. Josephus seems completely ignorant of any connection. If Eusebius did have a version of the TF placed near the reference to John, it's just as likely an explanation that a scribe (or Eusebius) had moved the reference to a more suitable place in light of the strong Christian association of Jesus with John the Baptist. Could you please explain how this reference from Eusebius seems to strengthen the argument of those who favor partial authenticity? I only see an argument that the description of John the Baptist is not likely to have been forged, because John the Baptist is not linked with Jesus. With this I agree, and I do not dispute the authenticity of the Baptist passage. Please explain why a scribe would have moved the passage from Ant. 18.3.3 to a place after John the Baptist while not making any connection to John in the Testimonium and while keeping the 'about this time' reference intact. As it is, the evidence from this reference seems to suggest that the Testimonium Flavianum was something like a 'floating pericope' on the model of the woman taken in adultery. Layman writes: However, the interpolation must have been made and popularized no later than the time of Eusebius, in the Fourth Century. How likely is it that Christians were translating Greek accounts of Josephus that lacked the TF if Eusebius had so clearly written about it a couple of hundred years earlier? My magic eight ball says 'the chances are good'. Seriously, even though I don't know much about the reception of the Testimonium after Jerome, I would like to point out that Eusebius is the only person extant in the fourth century to quote from the Testimonium Flavianum. After Eusebius, Jerome is the first one to quote the passage. While I am not using this as an argument for inauthenticity, it would suggest at least the plausibility that some manuscripts of the fifth or sixth centuries lacked the passage. Layman writes: Additionally, not having seen the table of contents, I would be curious to know how it was arranged. By Chapters? Books? Events? Did it break down into paragraphs? Is there somewhere online that I can review this table of contents? No, it is not online. All that I know about it was given in the quote from Feldman. Feldman is a bona fide Josephan scholar, but it would not be a bad thing to have the actual Latin table of contents available for our own personal review. I suggest, if you are interested in pursuing this, that you contact Feldman to find out where this table of contents may have been published. Please realize that chapters and paragraphs are modern divisions of Josephus. I look forward to your discussion of the rest of the article's contents. best, Peter Kirby

07-07-2002, 11:37 PM	#3
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Can we expect any further installments here? best, Peter Kirby

07-20-2002, 07:03 PM	#5
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Layman, do you plan to make any further replies on this topic? best, Peter Kirby

07-21-2002, 04:38 PM	#6
Vinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: Waterbury, Ct, Usa Posts: 6,523	Hey, Peter Kirby, what do you think of Goldberg's site? I noticed you linked it on your Flavius Josephus page.

07-21-2002, 07:50 PM	#7
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	ilgwamh writes: Hey, Peter Kirby, what do you think of Goldberg's site? I noticed you linked it on your Flavius Josephus page. I link to a lot of sites. But, yeah, Goldberg's site has a lot of useful information. Goldberg's big idea is that there was a short Christian document that was available both to Josephus for writing the Testimonium and to Luke for writing the Emmaus story. Earl Doherty said that he had some issues with Goldberg's theory, but when I e-mailed him about it, Doherty had forgotten about his objection (it was a couple years after Doherty made the comment) and did not have the time at the moment to review Goldberg's site. I haven't gone through Goldberg's site with a fine comb, nor have I read it in over a year, but here are a few things that stand out in my memory. Goldberg does not address a theory that Luke was the one who interpolated the Testimonium. I do not put any stock in such a theory, but it would circumvent Goldberg's objection against interpolation that a person would have no reason to chance upon the Emmaus narrative when fashioning the Testimonium. Goldberg does not address a theory that the person who interpolated the Testimonium had access to the Christian document posited by Goldberg. This would also circumvent Goldberg's objection against interpolation that a person would have no reason to chance upon the Emmaus narrative when fashioning the Testimonium. Goldberg does not explain why Josephus would have copied or paraphrased a Christian document faithfully when giving an account of Jesus. One would expect that Josephus would have had his own views on the matter that would not best be expressed by a Christian creed/story. I do not think that Goldberg has demonstrated a high enough incidence of verbal coincidence in order to demand the explanation of copying. Something like three consecutive words the same would be nice; such is the minimum for proving plagiarism in many cases. Once I have enough data, I would like to incorprate Goldberg into my Testimonium article. Do you (or anyone else) have any thoughts on Goldberg's ideas? best, Peter Kirby

07-21-2002, 08:45 PM	#8
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	For those who don't know, my page on Josephus is here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/josephus.html Goldberg's web page is here: http://members.aol.com/FLJOSEPHUS/home.htm I look forward to any comments. best, Peter Kirby

07-21-2002, 09:01 PM	#9
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I just read Goldberg's comparison of the passages in Josephus and in Luke, and he does make a compelling case that there is a parallel structure. But I was also impressed with Ken Olsen's thesis that the passage in Josephus looks like what Eusebius would have placed there. If these are both true, what does that mean? That Eusebius inserted the passage into Josephus based on the passage in Luke? Why would he have chosen that passage in particular? Or did Eusebius write both passages?

07-22-2002, 01:21 AM	#10
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Toto writes: I just read Goldberg's comparison of the passages in Josephus and in Luke, and he does make a compelling case that there is a parallel structure. Could you say what you find compelling about it in your own words? Toto writes: But I was also impressed with Ken Olsen's thesis that the passage in Josephus looks like what Eusebius would have placed there. If these are both true, what does that mean? That Eusebius inserted the passage into Josephus based on the passage in Luke? Why would he have chosen that passage in particular? Or did Eusebius write both passages? We can rule out the idea that Eusebius wrote both passages. The p75 manuscript is dated to the third century, and its exemplar must be even older. Among many other passages, the extant p75 manuscript preserves 22:4 to 24:53. (Note: this means that the manuscript is damaged; it does not mean that the missing portions were interpolated.) You can find that info here: http://www.earlham.edu/~seidti/iam/interp_mss.html It can be hard to read. Note that the ',' means that this is a chapter/verse separation, that the '-' means that the verses run from here to there, that the ';' means a jump to a different chapter, and that the '.' means that there is a break in the ms. but that it continues at the verses listed next in the same chapter. Also, I am not aware of the kind of political power that a man such as Eusebius weilded. Without the undying support of the emperor himself, I do not know how anyone could have rounded up all of the thousands of copies of Luke in the fourth century so as to be sure that absolutely no manuscript down the line was copied from an unaffected manuscript. All of these thousands of copies would have to be partially destroyed and replaced, which would imply a tremendous drain on resources. I could imagine an interpolation into the NT of the second century propagating to all known mss., and I could imagine the few mss. of Josephus that start in the 11th c. being so affected by a fourth century interpolation, but my imagination stretches no further than this. (Of course, interpolations such as the Johannine comma took place in later ages, but we have textual evidence for these.) And all this work for what? What does Eusebius really gain by interpolating the Emmaus narrative? A great opportunity for priests around the Empire to go - 'oh gee, look, there is this neat story in Luke that I have never read at the pulpit before, I wonder how it got there?' This is a memorable and moderately lengthy story, and it could not have been interpolated in the fourth century without being noticed. Not many read Josephus, but the same could not be said of Luke. And what could Eusebius expect when his opponents found out, and wouldn't the issue have left reverberations somewhere in the voluminous patristic literature of the fourth and fifth centuries? And how do we know that Eusebius had this much power in the first place? And what again was the motive for inserting this quaint story that has nothing to do with the doctrinal disputes of the fourth century? I know that the idea was just a suggestion, but it was not a very good one at that. Please excuse me for the rhetorical way in which I explain why I think so above. I am savage to the idea, but not to you, as you have my respect. As to Goldberg, however. I myself do not support authenticity for the TF, but Goldberg does. Goldberg, however, overlooks a possibility on the authenticity hypothesis. Goldberg has posited a common little document, perhaps a single papyrus page, as the source behind the TF and the Emmaus story. But, then, Mason and others have argued that Luke knew Josephus. So who is to say that Luke has not modeled his Emmaus part after Josephus? This could also cast doubt on another part, which is Goldberg's idea that Josephus mentioned the resurrection. Obviously, if Josephus left out the resurrection, Luke would be sure to put it back in. This would preserve Goldberg's thesis that Josephus wrote a TF and also explain away the objection that Josephus probably wouldn't have just paraphrased a Christian source. Of course, there would still be the problem of the arguments against the authenticity of any TF. Goldberg hasn't spent much time considering the objections that could come from someone who thinks that the TF was interpolated - such as, as I mentioned, that Luke could have been the interpolator. But I do await an explanation of how we know exactly that there was copying between the TF and the Emmaus narrative. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.