Peter Kirby

Layman writes: Let me see if I understand you correctly. You have argued that the translation of "our principal men" is not literal and therefore not helpful.

The important point is that Whiston has no basis in the Greek for using the first person plural possessive in this passage. The meaning of the narrative doesn't change much, so I don't fault Whiston for a bad translation, but the fact that the Greek doesn't have a first person plural in this passage is important to our conversation.

Layman writes: But, we have disposed of the idea that Josephus restricts the use of the term "principal men" to "the city" or "Jeruslaem." We have seen that Josephus uses the term "principal men" in a variety of contexts.

I agree that the essay in its current recension is misleading because I had not examined the use of the phrase outside of the Life. I don't remember exactly why; I think that someone pointed at the autobiography for the usage of 'principal men' and so I looked at that book to show that Josephus doesn't make use of the first person plural with reference to the principal men. Now that I have looked at all of the books of Josephus in searching for this phrase, the point that Josephus doesn't associate himself with the principal men in the first person plural remains, although the idea that Josephus always associates the term with Jerusalem doesn't fly (but it was not essential in the first place and does not affect the claim in the mentioned 'Josephus homepage' web site; it was an accident of the fact that I looked only at the autobiography at the time).

Layman writes: So both these phrases are typically Josephan.

The phrase "par' hêmin" is typical of many ancient writers. Here are some examples.

Odyssey 15.455
Thucydides Hist. 1.77.1.2, 2.71.2.6.
Euripides Alcestis 1151
Euripides Medea 323
Euripides Heraclidae 881
Euripides Hippolytus 677
Euripides Hippolytus 1204
Euripides Hecuba 322, 371
Euripides Electra 784, 1015
Euripides Iphigenia Taurica 465
Isocrates Helenae encomium 60.2
Isocrates Busiris 26.4
Aristophanes Lysistrata 453, 854
Xenophon Hellenica 3.1.24.4, 3.4.5.4
Xenophon Memorabilia 1.6.13.2
Xenophon Anabasis 6.3.26.2, 7.7.6.2
Xenophon Cyropaedia 1.2.6.3, 1.3.4.11, 2.3.4.5, 3.1.37.6, 3.3.55.3, 4.5.1.6, 4.5.25.2, 4.6.10.7, 5.2.35.7, 6.2.15.3, 8.5.19.6
Xenophon Agesilaus 4.6.3
Plato Respublica, Stephanus 397.e.1, 398.a.6, 401.b.3, 401.b.7, 453.a.3, 435.e.7, 520.a.7, 591.a.1

In my opinion, the phrase "par' hêmin" is so common that its use is not exactly a telling characteristic of style.

The phrase translated "principal men" is less common, though not unique to Josephus by any means. The phrase was used by other historians to refer to a leader or leaders.

tôn prôtôn andrôn - Thucydides, Hist. 4.108.7.2
tou prôtou andros - Plutarch, Lives 9.1

However, it would appear that even a casual reader of Josephus could notice the frequency with which the phrase is used, relative to other writers of the period.

Layman writes: But you are arguing that because we find these two typically Josephan phrases together on only one occassion that proves they are an interpolation?

Like I indicated, the phrase translated "among us" or "on our side" is so common that I doubt it is useful in determining literary style. But I would agree that the phrase translated "principal men" could be considered a characteristic of Josephus, even though Josephus was not the only person to use it in antiquity.

There may be a weakness in the argument so far as I have presented it, as it seems to be a mere technicality to say that Josephus uses 'principal men' and 'among us' but never says 'principal men among us'. So what, you might ask? Well, what if Josephus wanted to distance himself from the leaders of the Jews in Jerusalem? If that is the case, as suggested by the fact that Josephus nowhere associates himself with 'principal men' through the use of the first person plural (outside the disputed Testimonium), then this becomes a more significant point and not merely a stylistic peculiarity (though it is also that).

Layman writes: I'm not sure I buy that. Is there some rule of textual criticism you are following?

I speak for myself and not for text critics. Moreover, it is my understanding that the tools of text criticism are mainly geared towards choosing between readings attested in extant manuscripts. The problem of determining the authenticity of a passage attested in all manuscripts and quotes seems to be left to exegetes in most cases.

Layman writes: And is our interpolator really two then? Or more? One who cleverly mimics Josephan language and style and another who adds obviously nonJosephan remarks like "He was the Christ" and "he appeared to them alive on the third day"?

Many people pointed out the fallacy of this argument in response to a previous recension of my essay. Very often, when a person has been reading a writer's work for thousands and thousands of lines, a person starts to pick up naturally some of the stylistic characteristics of the writer. For example, it is often noted that Josephus uses "Now about this time" to the point of nausea. For that very reason, any reader of Josephus could have been influenced by this usage and written in this fashion when making an interpolation. The idea that the writer attempted to mimic style 'cleverly' in order to make the passage appear authentic is not necessary.

How does this impact Olson's theory that Eusebius was the interpolator?

If there was an original interpolation and then a later adding of more phrases, then the theory that Eusebius was the interpolator would have to be abandoned (except, possibly, for the phrases added later, of course). I myself, however, do not think that there is good evidence to think that a shorter Testimonium along the lines of Meier's reconstruction was ever in the ancient manuscripts of Josephus.

best,
Peter Kirby

[missing some UBB code]

[ July 31, 2002: Message edited by: peterkirby ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: Considering these points, I think the "silence" loses much of its probative value as evidence that the TF is a complete forgery.

I agree with Lowder that we do not have evidence that the historicity of Jesus was a subject of debate in antiquity. It also seems incorrect to say that Origen quoted Josephus in order to show the historical existence of John the Baptist. For these reasons, an argument that an early church father would have quoted Josephus to show the existence of Jesus does not work.

But, note well, that is not all the passage is good for. Eusebius quotes the passage in order to demonstrate that Jesus was not a fraud because (a) Jesus performed true miracles and (b) the movement initiated by Jesus survived his death. Both of these points are in the Meier's hypothetical Testimonium, so there may easily have been cause for an ante-Nicene church father to quote from Josephus. Origen, who responded to the claim from Celsus that Jesus worked his feats by the power of demons, had particular cause to quote the Testimonium in order to show that Jesus performed actual miracles, just as Eusebius did a century later.

There is another point, and that point is that a hypothetical authentic Testimonium would have been useful and quotable even if its precise wording might seem 'neutral' to us. Doherty writes:

"There is so much in this “neutral” account that Christians could have “put a spin on” in defense of themselves and Jesus, so much that could have given succor, support and even ammunition in much of what the Christian apologists were attempting to do in their writing. Origen alone spent a quarter of a million words contending against Celsus, drawing on all sorts of proofs and witnesses to the arguments he makes, including referring to Josephus, yet we are to believe that not once did a single element of this almost glowing description of Jesus by the famous Jewish historian commend itself for mention."

So, I think that this argument has value.

Mason wrote: "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)

Steve Mason is a genuine Josephan scholar, and I don't think that he is lying or fudging when he says that "such a construction is not found elsewhere in Josephus' writing" -- particularly because Mason sides in the end with partial authenticity.

Layman writes:

Robert Van Voorst seems to disagree with Mason's conclusion here. 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.

I think I will have to rest on Van Voorst's argument on this one. But I'll keep looking to see if anyone else has commented on this issue. Are you aware of any other such commentators?


Does Van Voorst indicate why he thinks that the phrase is "characteristically Josephan in style"? If not, then what we are looking at is not much of an argument.

By the nature of the case, it rests on the person who thinks that this construction may be found elsewhere in Josephus to present examples in which the construction is used elsewhere in Josephus. Even if I were to read Josephus entirely with the sole intent of discovering that the construction is not used, I could only give you the claim that I had done so and had not found the construction.

Also, from the quote of Van Voorst you gave, it is not even clear that Van Voorst is aware of the way in which Mason thinks that the construction is odd, specifically that the phrase "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." When Van Voorst says that the phrase is "characteristically Josephan in style," does Van Voorst refer to the words such as 'loved' and 'cease', or does Van Voorst have in mind the syntactic construction mentioned by Mason?

Layman writes: It appears more reasonable to believe that Josephus applies this term to Christians (a unique and separate group consisting of Greek and Jews) when he is known to have used the term many other times to distinguish other "peoples" (including Jews AND Gentiles)

Mason points out that Josephus uses phulon to refer to some Jewish groups (or rather the Jews themselves) and to some Gentile groups. Josephus uses the term of the Jews (Wars 3.354, 7.327), of the Taurians (Wars 2.366) and of the Parthians (Wars 2.379). Mason also notes that the term is once used for gender and for locusts. All this is mentioned in the very quote to which you replied.

The reason that it does not seem likely for Josephus to apply this term to Christians is that Christians were not a people in the racial sense in which Josephus usually used the term phulon; Christians did not have a homeland and did not add to their number so much through heredity as through conversion (at the time). Moreover, the Christian group included people who would be considered to be of different races or 'tribes' in the sense in which Josephus uses it most often. If there were an example in which Josephus used the term phulon to describe a group similar to the Christians in these regards - say, the Stoics - then that would be relevant.

Layman writes: than it is to suspect that it is a Christian would have used this term, when Christians rarely if ever described themselves as a "tribe." As Van Voorst notes, "calling Christians a 'tribe' would also be unusual for a Christian scribe; a follower of a missionizing faith would be uncomfortable with the more narrow, particularistic implications of this word." JOTNT, at 90.

Apparently, the fourth century Christian writer Eusebius had no problem calling Christians a phulon. Even if Eusebius were not the interpolator, this shows that a Christian writer of the time period would certainly not balk at applying the term to Christians.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

I think Meier's points -- about Josephus' knowledge of the "doer" aspects of the derivatives and about changing circumstances and/or sources giving ride to usages not elsewhere attested -- effectively rebuts the idea that we can infer inauthenticity about this one word.

I can agree that the usage of the term is not tpyically Josephan (although the vocabulary is), but I did not think it was such a deviation or awkward usage that it should not be viewed as giving rise to any inference of inauthenticity. Nor do I think this word is pivotal to the claim that the core is consistent with Josephan style.

[ August 01, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Layman

Do you know of any early Christians who made common use of the phrase?

Note that I did not say "uniquely" Josephan, but "typically" Josephan. And since we are looking for a signs of a Christian interpolator, the failure of Christian writers (including Eusebius) to use the "principal men" phrase (especially to describe leading Jews) is very probative.

My examples of the use of "among us" was intended to show that Josephus was not reluctant to refer to "us" when talking about the Jewish people or Jewish nation. In other words, it is typically if not uniquely Josephan.

The fact remains that "among us" is at least a typically Josephan statement. And so far as the examples of "among us" use you have given, none of them were from Christians sources. Moreover, if the interpolator where a Christian, he would be more apt to use the phrase "among the Jews" than "among us."

Well, first, he did not just discuss the rulers in Jerusalem, but "among us." But more importantly, this argument is speculative. I do not see how saying "principal men among us" associates Josephus personally with the principal men more than "principal men of the Jews" or "of the nation." He has made no secret of his Jewishness. Just the opposite in fact.

The main reason Josephus would have for distancing himself from the "principal men" would be to distance himself from the war. Is that your supposition? The problem with that is that Josephus does not use the term "principal men" in such a narrow way. In fact, he often portrays the "principal men" he is talking about in a favorable light. Sometimes even showing out the "principal men" attempted to prevent war with Rome.

And at this time it was that some of those that principally excited the people to go to war made an assault upon a certain fortress called Masada. They took it by treachery, and slew the Romans that were there, and put others of their own party to keep it. At the same time Eleazar, the son of Ananias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor of the temple, persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account; and when many of the high priests and principal men besought them not to omit the sacrifice, which it was customary for them to offer for their princes, they would not be prevailed upon.

Wars 2.17.2

[i]However, this man did not begin to teach them wisdom by arms, but sent among them privately some of the principal men, and thereby entreated them to be quiet, and not provoke the Roman army against them; but the seditious made a jest of the entreaties of Tiberius, and reproached him for so doing.

Wars 2.18.7

In the mean time, many of the principal men of the city were persuaded by Ananus, the son of Jonathan, and invited Cestius into the city, and were about to open the gates for him; but he overlooked this offer, partly out of his anger at the Jews, and partly because he did not thoroughly believe they were in earnest; whence it was that he delayed the matter so long, that the seditious perceived the treachery, and threw Ananus and those of his party down from the wall, and, pelting them with stones, drove them into their houses; but they stood themselves at proper distances in the towers, and threw their darts at those that were getting over the wall.

Wars 2.19.5

Finally, when veiwed in its specific context this argument is particularly weak because the actions of the "principal men" Josephus was discussing in the TF took place 40 years before the Jewish Revolt. And since the decision of the "principal men" to whom he refers was ratified by the Roman ruler, I again do not see any solid concerns Josephus would have had concerning using the phrase "among us."

The most reasonable and probable explanation for similar vocabulary and usage is that it was written by the original author. Your alternative, although possible, is completely speculative (unless we have a specific suspected interpolator, as with Olson's theory). Such an approach threatens to eliminate a common measure of authenticity and turn the rule on its head. Those words or phrases that most characterize the author would become suspect.

I did not ask my question clearly. My apologies. Let me put it this way, do you think the shift between typically and sometimes characteristically Josephan (a result of extensive reading of Josephus based on your theory) and clear Christian whoppers indicates multiple interpolators?

Layman

I cannot tell you what Van Voorst was specifically aware of, but I can say that he was familiar with Mason's work on Josephus and cites to it twice in his discussion on the TF.

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: I cannot tell you what Van Voorst was specifically aware of, but I can say that he was familiar with Mason's work on Josephus and cites to it twice in his discussion on the TF.

How might we know that Van Voorst is doing anything more than gainsaying?

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Well, he is a respected scholar and it was my impression that his book has been well-recieved. He is certainly familiar with the material and knowledgeable of Josephus' writings and Greek. And he refers to Mason's book on Josephus so he possibly, perhaps likely, is familiar with Mason's arguments.

I have sent Professor Van Voorst an email. I have no idea if he is in the practice of responding to such inquiries (especially from strangers). I will let you know if he responds.

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: Do you know of any early Christians who made common use of the phrase?

As I indicated, I do not have a concordance to the early church fathers. Someday I will have to break down and plunk down $300 for the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae on CD-ROM. Until that time, I am using the Perseus web site and the abridged TLG online for searching purposes. The TLG online does have some Christian writers, though most of them are later than Eusebius. Here they are.

Origen Fragmenta in evangelium Joannis 1.4, 122.3
Basilius Homiliae super Psalmos 29.289.4, 29.424.37
Basilius Adversus Eunomium 29.760.25
Cyrillus Expositio in Psalmos 69.797.7, 69.1044.13, 69.1260.53
Photius Lexicon iota.111.1, mu.277.7, omicron.367.14, pi.434.8, rho.493.5, sigma.549.14
Michael Psellus De omnifaria doctrina 157.2

The phrase also shows up in Matthew 22:25.

Layman writes: Note that I did not say "uniquely" Josephan, but "typically" Josephan.

Right. I was not correcting your statement, more like qualifying it.

Layman writes: And since we are looking for a signs of a Christian interpolator, the failure of Christian writers (including Eusebius) to use the "principal men" phrase (especially to describe leading Jews) is very probative.

I don't have Eusebius in Greek, so I trust Ken Olson when he states that PRWTOI ANDROI is not found in Eusebius. I also trust Ken Olson when he states that the phrase is not found in the earlier quote in Demonstratio Evangelica. In the DE, the phrase TON PAR' hHMIN ARCONTWN is found instead. I wonder what is found in the Greek of the Theophany by Eusebius.

Ken Olson asks the question: "Both hHDONHi DECOMENWN and PRWTWN ANDRWN are phrases found in Josephus for which I have been unable to find other parallels in Eusebius' writings. Are they signs of an authentic Josephan substratum lying beneath our present _Testimonium_?"

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

Although I agree with you that the phrase ANDRWN PRWTWN here would seem to have its origin in Josephus, I do not agree that the phrase has its origin in the Testimonium about Jesus. The phrase is common enough in Josephus to have been picked up by Eusebius or another reader of Josephus.

Layman writes: My examples of the use of "among us" was intended to show that Josephus was not reluctant to refer to "us" when talking about the Jewish people or Jewish nation. In other words, it is typically if not uniquely Josephan.

If the presence of a phrase shows that Josephus was not reluctant to refer to "us" when talking about the Jewish nation, does the absence of a phrase in connection with PRWTOI ANDROI show that Josephus was reluctant to refer to "us" when talking about the principal men? I would say yes.

Layman writes: The fact remains that "among us" is at least a typically Josephan statement.

Sometimes a phrase is common enough that its use is not an indicator of style. Perhaps an over-use of a phrase is an indicator of style. However, it has not been shown that Josephus uses PAR' hHMIN more often than the average writer in antiquity. And if you insist that this may not be an indicator of style yet still be "typically Josephan," then I ask, what is the point? I have not claimed that Josephus could not use such a common phrase, only that Josephus would not have used it in connection to PRWTWN ANDRWN, as such a use would be unparalleled elsewhere in Josephus.

Layman writes: And so far as the examples of "among us" use you have given, none of them were from Christians sources.

Someday I will buy the Thesaurus Lingua Graecae CD-ROM. Do you want to contribute to the "Get Kirby a TLG CD-ROM" fund?

Layman writes: Moreover, if the interpolator where a Christian, he would be more apt to use the phrase "among the Jews" than "among us."

The phrase "among the Jews" would be PAR' IOUDAIOIS in Greek. Do you have examples of early Christians using such a phrase? I could find only Cyrillus Alexendrinus of the fourth or fifth century in the online TLG. Anyway, I think the possibility that an interpolator might write "leaders among the Jews" does not negate the possibility that an interpolator might write "leaders among us."

Layman writes:

Well, first, he did not just discuss the rulers in Jerusalem, but "among us." But more importantly, this argument is speculative. I do not see how saying "principal men among us" associates Josephus personally with the principal men more than "principal men of the Jews" or "of the nation." He has made no secret of his Jewishness. Just the opposite in fact.

The main reason Josephus would have for distancing himself from the "principal men" would be to distance himself from the war. Is that your supposition? The problem with that is that Josephus does not use the term "principal men" in such a narrow way. In fact, he often portrays the "principal men" he is talking about in a favorable light. Sometimes even showing out the "principal men" attempted to prevent war with Rome.


It seems to be that "principal men" is something of a Whiston-ism. None of your examples actually have the crucial phrase PRWTOI ANDROI or the same phrase with different inflections.

Layman writes:

And at this time it was that some of those that principally excited the people to go to war made an assault upon a certain fortress called Masada. They took it by treachery, and slew the Romans that were there, and put others of their own party to keep it. At the same time Eleazar, the son of Ananias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor of the temple, persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account; and when many of the high priests and principal men besought them not to omit the sacrifice, which it was customary for them to offer for their princes, they would not be prevailed upon.

Wars 2.17.2

kai polla tôn te archiereôn kai tôn gnôrimôn parakalountôn mê paralipein to huper tôn hêgemonôn ethos ouk enedosan, polu men kai tôi spheterôi plêthei pepoithotes, kai gar to akmaiotaton tôn neôterizontôn sunêrgei, malista d' aphorôntes eis ton Eleazaron stratêgounta.

Layman writes:

However, this man did not begin to teach them wisdom by arms, but sent among them privately some of the principal men, and thereby entreated them to be quiet, and not provoke the Roman army against them; but the seditious made a jest of the entreaties of Tiberius, and reproached him for so doing.

Wars 2.18.7

ou mên houtos ge apo tôn hoplôn êrxato sôphronizein, all' hupopempsas tous gnôrimous autois pausasthai parekalei kai mê kath' heautôn erethizein to Rhômaiôn strateuma. katachleuazontes de tês paraklêseôs hoi stasiôdeis eblasphêmoun ton Tiberion.

Layman writes:

In the mean time, many of the principal men of the city were persuaded by Ananus, the son of Jonathan, and invited Cestius into the city, and were about to open the gates for him; but he overlooked this offer, partly out of his anger at the Jews, and partly because he did not thoroughly believe they were in earnest; whence it was that he delayed the matter so long, that the seditious perceived the treachery, and threw Ananus and those of his party down from the wall, and, pelting them with stones, drove them into their houses; but they stood themselves at proper distances in the towers, and threw their darts at those that were getting over the wall.

Wars 2.19.5

En de toutôi polloi tôn gnôrimôn dêmotôn Ananôi tôi Iônathou paidi peisthentes ekaloun ton Kestion hôs anoixontes autôi tas pulas.

Layman writes:

Finally, when veiwed in its specific context this argument is particularly weak because the actions of the "principal men" Josephus was discussing in the TF took place 40 years before the Jewish Revolt. And since the decision of the "principal men" to whom he refers was ratified by the Roman ruler, I again do not see any solid concerns Josephus would have had concerning using the phrase "among us."

For Josephus to identify himself with the "principal men" at any point would be to go against his style, as shown by the fact that nowhere (else) does Josephus do so. Josephus may have wished to make a clean separation between himself and PRWTOI ANDROI by refusing to identify himself with them anywhere in his books.

Layman writes:

The most reasonable and probable explanation for similar vocabulary and usage is that it was written by the original author. Your alternative, although possible, is completely speculative (unless we have a specific suspected interpolator, as with Olson's theory). Such an approach threatens to eliminate a common measure of authenticity and turn the rule on its head. Those words or phrases that most characterize the author would become suspect.

This was a counter-argument, not a positive argument, so your statement that "words or phrases that most characterize the author would become suspect" seems to overstate the case, which is that an interpolator can sometimes express himself in the phrasing of his exemplar out of habit. Part of a Greco-Roman education in rhetoric included writing speeches in the manner of ancient men, so a scribe would have some practice in using the idiom of a dead master in order to say what that person should have said. This is not to say that Josephan stylistic characteristics would show that the passage was not written by Josephus, as that would be absurd, but rather to say that a few Josephan idiomatic traits cannot be used to close the case.

As for the argument based on Josephan style, I would grant it credibility if and only if there were no suggestions of non-Josephan style. Mason, Olson, and I have argued that there are some phrases in the Testimonium that are uncharacteristic of Josephus.

Layman writes:

I did not ask my question clearly. My apologies. Let me put it this way, do you think the shift between typically and sometimes characteristically Josephan (a result of extensive reading of Josephus based on your theory) and clear Christian whoppers indicates multiple interpolators?

I would say no, because I do not think that the interpolator would have anticipated the modern debate over the passage's authenticity. The idea of "clear Christian whoppers" is based on our point of view, which is not necessarily the same as the interpolator's. There was forged literature that attributes Christian sentiments to those who were not actually Christian, such as the Acts of Pilate (or, within the New Testament, John the Baptist). I am not sure that all ancient Christians had a sense that there were certain people who could not have witnessed to Christ.

As I indicated, the ancients were typically educated in the art of imitatio, or writing what you think a historical figure should have said on a certain thing. It would be natural for an interpolation written in the same manner by one who had immersed themselves in an author to reflect some of the phrases found in the author. A key factor in determining authenticity is determining whether the use of these phrases appears to be imperfect or whether the terms are always used in the manner that the original author uses them. The phrase "principal men among us" is just such a phrase that appears to fit more the style of a reader of Josephus than Josephus himself, as Josephus avoids the phrase "principial men among us" but does refer to ANDRWN PRWTWN in other ways at several points.

The hypothesis that the Testimonium took shape as a whole, instead of being formed through multiple redactions, and was thus written by an interpolator could be supported by the fact that some of the language used in the alleged additions is paralleled in Josephus. The phrase translated "divine prophets" is found nowhere in the Septuagint or the New Testament. However, Josephus uses the phrase "divine prophets" or "divine prophet" on occasion. Josephus refers to prophêtês tou theou in Ant. 8.402, prophêtou ton theon in Ant. 10.29, and prophêtês tou theou in Ant. 10.92. The phrase "countless wonderful things besides," or alla muria in the TF, is also paralled in Josephus, who refers to allous murious in Contra Apionem 2.131. Since it is generally acknowledged that these phrases come from an interpolator, it is seen that the use of phraseology that can be paralleled in Josephus is not a reliable indicator of authenticity.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: I think Meier's points -- about Josephus' knowledge of the "doer" aspects of the derivatives and about changing circumstances and/or sources giving ride to usages not elsewhere attested -- effectively rebuts the idea that we can infer inauthenticity about this one word.

I guess my analogy wasn't as good as I thought. Let me try again. Consider the word 'programmer', which has as its primary sense a person who codes instructions for digital machines. Then consider the range of meaning for derivative/relative words: the word "program" can be used for a written guide at a sports event or for services to aid a community, while the word "programming" can refer to the lineup of shows on television. This does not mean that a person who uses "program" or "programming" in these senses might also use "programmer" to refer to a person who writes player statistics for pamphlets or decides what goes on the air at prime time. That is not a logical inference.

Layman writes: I can agree that the usage of the term is not tpyically Josephan (although the vocabulary is), but I did not think it was such a deviation or awkward usage that it should not be viewed as giving rise to any inference of inauthenticity. Nor do I think this word is pivotal to the claim that the core is consistent with Josephan style.

By all means, consider all the words in the Testimonium Flavianum when trying to determine whether it is consistent with Josephan style. But do not ignore any word. When a term is used in a way that is not typically Josephan, then we need to acknowledge that the hypothetical core of Meier is not entirely consistent with Josephan usage. This suggests the plausibility, arguably the actuality, of Christian interpolation for the passage on Jesus.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Professor Van Voorst is going to check his notes and get back to me. Not that I am making any promises, but he was friendly and took the time to respond in the first place, so perhaps I will get a more detailed response.

One additional point I want to make though, is that Mason's point that the failure to finish "did not cease" is awkward would apply to any writer, whether an interpolator or not. As a result, there is a strong possibility that we have a textual omission here.

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.