Layman

To be clear, my response was focused on this point in your original article: Consider Origen, who quoted from the Antiquities of the Jews in order to establish the historical existence of John the Baptist even though there is no evidence that the historicity of John the Baptist was questioned. If Origen found it useful to quote Josephus in order to establish the historicity of John, how much more so would Origen be eager to quote Josephus in order to establish the historicity of Jesus? Indeed, Origen cites Josephus to establish the existence of the Baptist even though Celsus represented the Jew in his discourse as accepting the historicity of John (Contra Celsus 1.47).

It seems that now we agree that Origen did not cite Josephus to establish the mere historicity of Jesus and that the argument that Origen or any other church father would have cited Josephus to prove the mere existence of Jesus is without probative value.

Well, if we are comparing the strength of the complete interpolation theory vs. the partial interpolation theory, this argument (and I address Doherty's here too, though is comments are very generalized -- whereas you offer two examples) loses much of its weight.

First, Eusebius was working from a fully-interpolated Josephus. One that is very favorable towards Jesus. One that unambiguously stated that Jesus was the Christ, clearly indicating that Jesus' miracles were genuine.

I think we agree that Origen at the very least did not have the version of the TF that Eusebius had. So of course Eusebius had a much greater motive to cite Josephus than Origen had, because his version was unequivocably positive.

Second, this point (and Doherty) ignores the negative reconstruction favored by many scholars. As reconstructed by F.F. Bruce:

Now there arose about this time a source of further trouble in one Jesus, a wise man who performed surprising works, a teacher of men who gladly welcome strange things. He led away many Jews, and also many of the Gentiles. He was the so-called Christ. When Pilate acting on information supplied by the chief men among us, condemoned him to the cross, thsoe who had attached themselves to him at first did not cease to cause trouble,a nd the tribe of Christians, which has taken this name from him, is not extent even today.

Third, even if we stick with the "neutral reconstruction" we have not provided writers like Origen with a sufficient reason to use the TF that it makes their silence a strong argument against authenticity. Even if the neutral reconstruction is more accurate, it does not mean that it looked neutral to the early Church fathers. Whatever else Origen knew about Josephus' references to Jesus, he was certain that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Messiah.

For example, you offer the example of miracle-working. It is questionable whether Origen or any of the others would have found value in Josephus' reference to Jesus' miracles. The word Josephus uses just as easily could mean "surprising deeds" performed by magic. Since it appears that Christianity's critics conceded that Jesus performed some sort of strange deeds, but argued that they were done by magic (Celsus, bTalmud), Josephus' statement might very well play into their argument. In fact, the term used by Josephus is actually almost identical to the term used by Celsus.

As for the argument that Origen (or another church father) could have used Josephus' statement about Christianity surviving, I find that unpersuasive. It was obvious to any of the critics of Jesus being responded to by the early Church fathers that Christianity had survived the death of Jesus. In fact, the argument is almost axiomatic. I have already noted that Eusebius used Josephus in a different way and more extensively than any other Christian writer before him. Saying that they would have written like Eusebius to make such an obvious fact is not a very strong argument from silence.

Layman

I have not heard back from Van Voorst, but I noted that another scholar also found that the phrase "conforms to Josephus' characteristic style." Edwin M. Yamuchi, Jesus Outside the New Testament, in Jesus Under Fire, Eds. Michael J. Wilkin and J.P. Moreland.

And the more I think about it the the less persuasive Mason is on this.

Here is his original point:

Second, Mason observes:

Notice further that the phrase "they did not cease" has to be completed by the translator, for it is left incomplete in the text; the action which his followers ceased must be understood from the preceding phrase. This is as peculiar in Greek as it is in English, and such a construction is not found elsewhere in Josephus' writing. (p. 169)

Because, as Mason acknowledges, the wording is very awkward, he claims that this statement is not characteristically Josephan. Van Voorst and Yamauchi disagree. It seems that the only reason Mason finds this statement to be nonJosephan is the failure of the text to "complete the thought." Yamauchi and Van Voorst, however, seem to have based their comparison on a completed clause. I think they were well justified in doing so.

The problem with Mason's argument is that the Greek would be just as awkward to any interpolator who have added it to the text. Accordingly, the most reasonable explanation is that our textual tradition is corrupt and has an ommission here.

As I noted above, this hypothesis find support in the nature of the Antiquities textual tradition. Citing a study by G.L. Richards in the Journal of Theological Studies (xliii, at 70, 1941), F.F. Bruce notes, "It has also been pointed out that ommission of words and short phrases is characteristic of the textual tradition of the Antiquities..." The New Testament Documents, at 109.

This also finds support in the early external citations to Josephus.

All three of Eusebius' citations to the TF "complete the thought." The EH and DE conclude the phrase by noting "they did not forsake him." The Theophany concludes the thought by noting that they "were not reduced to silence." This would seem to be especially signifiant if we are accepting Olson's theory that Eusebius himself invented the TF and inserted it into the textual tradition.

Jerome also completes the thought by noting that they "at first persevered."

Isidorus agrees with Eusebius by noting that "they did not forsake him."

Sozomen states that the Christians were "not then extinct."

And Casssidorus notes that they "continued to love him."

Now, I think that these cites demonstrate that the textual tradition had the concluding thought that Mason assumes was never there. But even if we do not accept this idea, these external citations demonstrate that Christians writers also found the lack of an ending to the clause as strange and corrected it in their citations. If that is true, then it is makes it even more unlikely that a Christian interpolator would have made the same mistake that Mason claims is in the present text.

[ August 07, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: I have not heard back from Van Voorst, but I noted that another scholar also found that the phrase "conforms to Josephus' characteristic style." Edwin M. Yamuchi, Jesus Outside the New Testament, in Jesus Under Fire, Eds. Michael J. Wilkin and J.P. Moreland.

Is Yamauchi a specialist in Josephus? More importantly, does Yamauchi present any similar examples of such a syntactic construction in Josephus? Does Yamauchi demonstrate that he is even aware of the way in which the phrase is peculiar according to Mason?

Layman writes: Because, as Mason acknowledges, the wording is very awkward, he claims that this statement is not characteristically Josephan. Van Voorst and Yamauchi disagree.

Van Voorst and Yamauchi have provided no examples in Josephus of the grammatical construction indicated by Mason. For all we know, Van Voorst and Yamauchi might have in mind the fact that the verb for "love" is found 75 times in Josephus when they make the claim that the statement is characteristically Josephan. That is, we have not been given an explanation of why Van Voorst and Yamauchi think that the statement is characteristically Josephan.

Layman writes: It seems that the only reason Mason finds this statement to be nonJosephan is the failure of the text to "complete the thought."

Have you found another example in Josephus where Josephus fails to "complete the thought" in a similar way?

(I am quoting your phrase. I assume you are using quotes for emphasis.)

Layman writes: Yamauchi and Van Voorst, however, seem to have based their comparison on a completed clause. I think they were well justified in doing so.

I have seen no evidence that either Yamauchi or Van Voorst had a particular comparable passage in Josephus in mind when making their statements. I have certainly not seen an example of the construction that Mason indicates is not found elsewhere in Josephus.

Also, you wrote: He states that "'Those who had first loved him did not cease [doing so]' is characteristically Josephan in style...." Jesus Outside the New Testament, at 90. This seems to suggest that Van Voorst is aware that the words in brackets have to be supplied in the English translation. It does not suggest that Van Voorst made his statement about a hypothetical Greek original that completed the clause.

Layman writes: The problem with Mason's argument is that the Greek would be just as awkward to any interpolator who have added it to the text.

This is not known. It is quite possible that the interpolator was fond of this particular awkward construction, or at least did not find it unusual. Josephus is the known variable, who is not known to have used the construction despite his huge volume, but an interpolator could be anybody. Even if we are evaluating the Eusebius theory, I do not know anyone who has investigated Eusebius in Greek in order to find out whether such a construction is used by Eusebius. And the Eusebius theory is not essential to the interpolation theory.

Layman writes: Accordingly, the most reasonable explanation is that our textual tradition is corrupt and has an ommission here.

What do you suggest might have been the original Greek here? This would help in evaluating your proposal.

Layman writes: As I noted above, this hypothesis find support in the nature of the Antiquities textual tradition. Citing a study by G.L. Richards in the Journal of Theological Studies (xliii, at 70, 1941), F.F. Bruce notes, "It has also been pointed out that ommission of words and short phrases is characteristic of the textual tradition of the Antiquities..." The New Testament Documents, at 109.

F. F. Bruce refers to G. C. Richards: "It has also been pointed out that omission of words and short phrases is characteristic of the textual tradition of the Antiquities,[4], which makes it easier to accept a suggestion that the word 'so-called' has dropped out before 'Christ', and some such phrase as 'as they said' or possibly 'as they say' after 'for he appeared to them'.[5]" Bruce's examples have to do with omissions that would make the text more attractive to a Christian scribe, while your proposal has to do with an omission that would remove a completing phrase. It would be nice to know what kind of examples Richards came up with.

Layman writes:

This also finds support in the early external citations to Josephus.

All three of Eusebius' citations to the TF "complete the thought." The EH and DE conclude the phrase by noting "they did not forsake him."

Olson gives the text of the quote in the DE:

GINETAI DE KAT' EKEINON TON CRONON IHSOUS, SOFOS ANHR, EIGE ANDRA AUTON LEGEI XRH. HN GAR PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS, DIDASKALOS ANQRWPWN TALHQH SEBOMENWN, KAI POLLOUS MEN IOUDAIKOU, POLLOUS DE KAI hHLLHNIKOU EPHGAGETO. hO CRISTOS hOUTOS HN, KAI AUTON ENDEIXEI TON PAR' hHMIN ARCONTWN STAURWi EPITETIMHKOTOS PILATOU, OUK EPAUSANTO hOI TO PRWTON AGAPHSANTES. EFANE GAR AUTOIS TRITHN hHMERAN PALIN ZWN, TWN THEIWN PROFHTWN TAUTA TE KAI ALLA MYRIA PERI AUTOU EIRHKOTWN. hOQEN EISETI NUN APO TOUDE TWN CRISTIANWN OUK EPELIPE TO FULON.

Olson gives the text of the quote in the HE:

GINETAI DE KATA TOUTON TON CRONON IHSOUS, SOFOS ANHR, EI GE ANDRA AUTON LEGEI XRH. HN GAR PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS, DIDASKALOS ANQRWPWN TWN hHDONHi TALHQH DECOMENWN, KAI POLLOUS MEN TWN IOUDAIWN, POLLOUS DE KAI APO TOU hHLLHNIKOU EPHGAGETO. hO CRISTOS hOUTOS HN, KAI AUTON ENDEIXEI TON PRWTWN ANDRWN PAR' hHMIN STAURWi EPITETIMHKOTOS PILATOU, OUK EPAUSANTO hOI TO PRWTON AGAPHSANTES. EFANE GAR AUTOIS TRITHN ECWN hHMERAN PALIN ZWN, TWN THEIWN PROFHTWN TAUTA TE KAI ALLA MYRIA PERI AUTOU QAUMASIA EIRHKOTWN. EIS ETI TE NUN TWN CRISTIANWN APO TOUDE WNOMASMENON OUK EPELIPE TO FULON.

The phrase "OUK EPAUSANTO hOI TO PRWTON AGAPHSANTES," which I would crib as "those who from the first loved [him] did not cease," is identical in these two quotes by Eusebius and in the Greek manuscripts that contain the passage. The translators of Eusebius into English may have felt that they needed to supply more words in order for the sense to be clear.

Layman writes: The Theophany concludes the thought by noting that they "were not reduced to silence."

Can I have the complete English quote from the Theophany? Do you have quotes of the surrounding passages? I have been looking for the Theophany for a while.

Do you have the Greek or the Syriac for this quote? If not, we may just be looking at a translator's gloss, as in the other quotes from Eusebius.

Layman writes: This would seem to be especially signifiant if we are accepting Olson's theory that Eusebius himself invented the TF and inserted it into the textual tradition.

Olson's theory is a sufficient but not a necessary condition of the interpolation theory. If Olson is right, the interpolation theory is true; if Olson is wrong, the interpolation theory may or may not be true, and the case would have to be decided on other grounds. Unless, of course, there is a good argument that nobody other than Eusebius could have made an interpolation.

Layman writes:

Jerome also completes the thought by noting that they "at first persevered."

Isidorus agrees with Eusebius by noting that "they did not forsake him."

Sozomen states that the Christians were "not then extinct."

And Casssidorus notes that they "continued to love him."

I would like to know the Latin or Greek of these quotes. Thanks.

Layman writes:

Now, I think that these cites demonstrate that the textual tradition had the concluding thought that Mason assumes was never there. But even if we do not accept this idea, these external citations demonstrate that Christians writers also found the lack of an ending to the clause as strange and corrected it in their citations.

Or it just may show that English translators found it strange and corrected it in their translations. When we are dealing with a fine linguistic point like this, it is absolutely necessary to compare with the text in the original language.

It is easy to show that some translators have added clarifying words in their translation of this phrase even though they have the Greek original, which is not a bad practice (as a translation is not a crib) but which makes these translations inconclusive at best to our discussion here. Feldman translates, "those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him." There is no noun phrase in the Greek that corresponds to "their affection for him," but Feldman translates it this way just the same. It is quite reasonable to think that other translators of the quotes in the church fathers may have done something similar.

Layman writes: If that is true, then it is makes it even more unlikely that a Christian interpolator would have made the same mistake that Mason claims is in the present text.

Just to be clear, Mason does not claim that the Greek phrasing as it stands is a mistake. It seems to be grammatically correct. Mason claims that it is a peculiar construction, one which is not paralleled elsewhere in Josephus. The construction may or may not have been typical of the writing of an interpolator.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

I see that Roger Pearse has completed placing the English translation of the Theophany online. It is available here.

<a href="http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/" target="_blank">http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/</a>

Here is the passage on Josephus.

----
The testimony therefore, of these men respecting our Saviour, is sufficient. There is nevertheless, nothing to prohibit our availing ourselves, even the more abundantly, of the Hebrew witness Josephus; who, in the Eighteenth Book of his Antiquities of the Jews, writing the things that belonged to the times of Pilate, commemorates our Saviour in these words: --

(The testimony) of Josephus respecting the Christ.

44. " At87 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."

45. If88 therefore, as (this) author attests of Him, |331 He was the doer of wonderful works, and that He made His Disciples,--not only the twelve Apostles, or the seventy Disciples, but also attached to Himself,--myriads of others both of the Jews and Gentiles; it is clear, that He possessed something excellent beyond the rest of mankind. For, How could He have otherwise attached to Himself the many, both of the Jews and Gentiles, unless He had made use of miracles and astonishing deeds, and of doctrines (till then) unknown ? The Book of the Acts of the Apostles also attests, that there were many thousands of the Jews, who were persuaded that He was that Christ of God, who had been preached of by the Prophets. It is also on record, that there was a great Church of Christ at Jerusalem; which had been collected from among the Jews, even to the times of its reduction by Hadrian. The first Bishops too who were there, are said to have been, one after another, fifteen (in number), who were Jews89; the names of whom are published to the men of that place, even until now. So that by these, every accusation against the Disciples may be undone; since, what was prior to them, and independent of their testimony, these attest of Him, (viz.), that He, the Christ of God, did by means of these wondrous works which He performed, reduce many, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, beneath His power90.
----

I still need the original language in order to judge its import to our discussion. I will ask Pearse about getting the Syriac (or Greek) of the Testimonium quote in the Theophany.

best,
Peter Kirby