Freethought & Rationalism Archive

MortalWombat · 05-21-2003, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vinnie
The nineties ad is sufficient for "to this day"

Perhaps, but it's also just as likely as not, in my opinion. It does add a layer of uncertainty to the provenance of the passage.

Quote:

and Christians underwent persecutions before then.

Note that I wrote extensive persecutions. Origen, writing in Contra Celsum, says that people who have endured death for the sake of Christianity "can easily be numbered", and this was in the mid 200s.

MortalWombat · 05-21-2003, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by IronMonkey
If the time frame were not long, how do you think would the author have phrased it?

I'm not really in a position to know how Josephus' mind worked. My point is that this phrase at the very least does not favor the view that the [whole] passage is original, and in my opinion, adds to the laundry list of things that cast suspicion on the passage's provenance.

Vorkosigan · 05-21-2003, 02:54 PM

If the gospels are all post-Josephus, that leaves things in even greater confusion. In the first century terms like saints, the elect, the church of god, were used to describe Christianity. These were the same terms used to refer to the Essenes, whom Josephus knew and provides a detailed account of. How did Josephus use a word that was not yet extant?

Also why no similarly detailed account of Christianity, if he knew it?

Vorkosigan

Vorkosigan · 05-22-2003, 07:09 AM

For those of you who have not yet seen it, Alice Whealey has an overview article on the history of the debates over the TF at Steve Mason's site.

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

Vorkosigan

Peter Kirby · 05-22-2003, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
Would you say that the Christians were an identifiable, separate group called Christians in the early 90s when Josephus was writing?

Based on the references from Tacitus and Suetonius, I would say that there was a group called Christians in Rome in the 60s.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
What would justify Josephus' use of "tribe" or "nation" to describe an essentially religious group that at the time was still sorting out its names, beliefs, identities....

Christianity is still sorting out its beliefs and identities and will continue to do so, world without end. The name of "Christian" appears to be the preferred one used by outsiders; I am not aware of any outsider reference to Jesus people in any other manner.

Quote:

Originally posted by Vorkosigan
...in other words, mayhap you are right and too much is being read into it, but the underlying point is dead on: the passage appears to describe a Christianity that is much more well-defined than it appears to have been in the late first century.

In addition to reading too much into the passage, the argument assumes that whatever Josephus was writing was accurate in describing the state of Christianities in his day. But this is not so. I have once described Islam as though it were monolithic, while I have come to learn that it contains many factions, both conservative and liberal. I will not even try to count the number of times I have seen sweeping generalizations about atheists, who must be the most diffuse and uncoordinated "group" on the planet, yet who are still lumped under a single name. It seems to be natural for outsiders, who may not be familiar with the niceties or differences of the group, and moreoever who may not care at all, to describe a group as if it were all of one piece.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman · 05-22-2003, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby

1. The argument is made that much of the vocabulary and style matches that of Josephus. His opening phrase, "Now about this time..." is used regularly to the point of nausea. The description of Jesus as "a wise man" is not typically Christian, but it is used by Josephus of, for example, Solomon and Daniel. Similarly, Christians did not refer to Jesus' miracles as "astonishing deeds" (paradoxa erga), but exactly the same expression is used by Josephus of the miracles of Elisha. And the description of Christians as a "tribe" (phylon) occurs nowhere in early Christian literature, while Josephus uses the word both for the Jewish "race" and for other national or communal groups.

John P. Meier concludes the following from his analysis of the vocabulary of the Testimonium compared to Josephus and to the New Testament: "No one of these differences means all that much; but the accumulated evidence of all these differences may point to an author who is not taking his material from the NT...The upshot of all this is that, apart from Christianon, not one word of what I identify as the original text of the Testimonium fails to occur elsewhere in Josephus, usually with the same meaning and/or construction. As indicated in the first part of this note, the same cannot be said of the NT." (pp. 81-82)

Meier writes: "The comparison of vocabulary between Josephus and the NT does not provide a neat solution to the problem of authenticity but it does force us to ask which of two possible scenarios is more probable. Did a Christian of some unknown century so immerse himself in the vocabulary and style of Josephus that, without the aid of any modern dictionaries and concordances, he was able to (1) strip himself of the NT vocabulary with which he would naturally speak of Jesus and (2) reproduce perfectly the Greek of Josephus for most of the Testimonium -- no doubt to create painstakingly an air of verisimilitude -- while at the same time destroying the air with a few patently Christian affirmations? Or is it more likely that the core statement, (1) which we first isolated simply by extracting what would strike anyone at first glance as Christian affirmations, and (2) which we then found to be written in typically Josephan vocabulary that diverged from the usage of the NT, was in fact written by Josephus himself? Of the two scenarios, I find the second much more probable." (p. 63)

Against this contention, it is maintained that a scribe who had been copying Josephus for the previous 17 books would be able to acquire without effort some characteristics of the author's style. For example, the fact that the phrase "Now about this time..." was used very regularly means that it would come to the pen of a reader of Josephus without difficulty and without the need to postulate that the interpolater was attempting to create versimilitude.

Moreover, it is maintained that the vocabulary of the Testimonium is just as well understood to be the vocabulary of Eusebius. The description of Jesus as a "wise man" is an intentional contrast to the description of men such as Apollonius as a GOHS. The description of Jesus' miracles as "astonishing deeds" is, as Olson points out, "markedly Eusebian." Finally, a reference to Christianity as a tribe (phylon) is found in Justin Martyr (Dialogue 119.4), and such a reference is found in Eusebius himself (Ecclesiastical History 3.33.2, 3.33.3).

Finally, this argument is invalidated by the elements of the Testimonium that contradict the style of Josephus: the three examples noted by Mason above and the reference to "the leading men among us."

Peter, did you ever get a chance to review my critiques of Olson's theory? It seems to be a commonly raised objection to Meier's arguments.

I was thinking of retooling it and posting it again.

Peter Kirby · 05-22-2003, 10:51 PM

Olson's terminological studies can be used to argue for two separate things: (1) that the vocabulary of the Testimonium is not uniquely Josephan and could naturally occur to a Christian writer and (2) Eusebius was the author of the Testimonium. While I am aware that you contested (2), I am not aware of any counter-argument to the first point.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman · 05-22-2003, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Olson's terminological studies can be used to argue for two separate things: (1) that the vocabulary of the Testimonium is not uniquely Josephan and could naturally occur to a Christian writer and (2) Eusebius was the author of the Testimonium. While I am aware that you contested (2), I am not aware of any counter-argument to the first point.

best,
Peter Kirby

Actually, I did not think Olson spent much time on (1). In fact, after we argued about the linguistic evidence, he was pretty frank that the bulk of his argument depended on Eusebius' apologetic purposes.

Peter Kirby · 05-22-2003, 11:30 PM

Even if Olson didn't spend time on the matter, it could still be argued that the presence of the terminology in Eusebius indicates that the phraseology would not necessarily be abnormal for an ancient Christian. For example, it is claimed that no Christian used the term φυλον for Christianity, but the term is used by Eusebius, and so its plausible usage should not be denied to a third century or early fourth century Christian interpolator.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman · 05-23-2003, 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Even if Olson didn't spend time on the matter, it could still be argued that the presence of the terminology in Eusebius indicates that the phraseology would not necessarily be abnormal for an ancient Christian. For example, it is claimed that no Christian used the term φυλον for Christianity, but the term is used by Eusebius, and so its plausible usage should not be denied to a third century or early fourth century Christian interpolator.

best,
Peter Kirby

I'm skeptical that we can take Eusebius' use of language as demonstrative of a common tendency of Christian usage. But even more problematic is that Eusebius made great, and rather unimaginative, use of Josephus as a source. Such does not appear to be the case for most other Christians. In fact, I'm sure we can both agree that no other Christian author to that date made so much use of Josephus.

Finally, even Olson concedes that there are terms in the TF that appear nowhere in Eusebius, but do appear elsewhere in Josephus.

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

05-21-2003, 02:54 PM	#13
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	If the gospels are all post-Josephus, that leaves things in even greater confusion. In the first century terms like saints, the elect, the church of god, were used to describe Christianity. These were the same terms used to refer to the Essenes, whom Josephus knew and provides a detailed account of. How did Josephus use a word that was not yet extant? Also why no similarly detailed account of Christianity, if he knew it? Vorkosigan

05-22-2003, 07:09 AM	#14
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	For those of you who have not yet seen it, Alice Whealey has an overview article on the history of the debates over the TF at Steve Mason's site. http://josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf Vorkosigan

05-22-2003, 10:51 PM	#17
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Olson's terminological studies can be used to argue for two separate things: (1) that the vocabulary of the Testimonium is not uniquely Josephan and could naturally occur to a Christian writer and (2) Eusebius was the author of the Testimonium. While I am aware that you contested (2), I am not aware of any counter-argument to the first point. best, Peter Kirby

05-22-2003, 11:30 PM	#19
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Even if Olson didn't spend time on the matter, it could still be argued that the presence of the terminology in Eusebius indicates that the phraseology would not necessarily be abnormal for an ancient Christian. For example, it is claimed that no Christian used the term φυλον for Christianity, but the term is used by Eusebius, and so its plausible usage should not be denied to a third century or early fourth century Christian interpolator. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.