Peter Kirby

lcb, you have either misunderstood the character of my discussion with Layman, or you are interjecting comments at will that are tangentially related at best. I have been advocating the plausibility and arguably the actuality that the Testimonium is a Christian insertion into the Antiquities of Josephus. I have not claimed that the interpolator of the Testimonium, if there was one, was "conjuring up a fake religion out of whole cloth." The religion already existed for quite a while by the time of an interpolator. The Christian scribe may have found it odd that Josephus "did not believe in Jesus as the Christ" and sought to correct this oversight - who knows, maybe the scribe even thought that pagans had expunged a reference to Christ in the original Josephus! Or, even if the interpolator was Eusebius, Eusebius would assign high value to a few words in Josephus, a writer whom he admired, and the interpolation could have been pulled off at no extravagant expense, but it cannot be assumed that Eusebius would have even conceived of the elaborate procedure that you suggest. I do welcome contributions to these threads from people other than Layman, but I ask that these contributions be limited to discussing the authenticity of the Testimonium passage and the related questions of the passages mentionion James and John the Immerser. I am not advocating the non-existence of a historical Jesus, or at least I am not doing so here.

best,
Peter Kirby

lcb

pete, i respectuflly submit you missed my point, albeit a point i made somewhat hyperbolically...what are the motivations of someone who is adding to/or subtracting from something? if they are a scholarly and learned person living at that time? if they are adding/subtracting with an eye towards many future generations? if they sincerely beleive or conversely are shrewdly manipulating?

Peter Kirby

I wrote: "How much higher might the figure be for the non-Christian documents preserved by Christian scribes? Is it 40%? Is it 50%? Is it 60%? Maybe even 70%? Do you know?"

Layman responded: Nope, and neither do you. Which is kinda the point. There is probative evidence indicating that Christians preferred to use codices for their writings very early on.

I wrote: "If you do not know, is it not you who is basing an argument on a speculative point?"

Layman responded: Well, we are both being speculative to the extent we are guessing whether Antiquities was copied onto scrolls or codices.

There is a difference here. I have not used the idea that an interpolator may have used a scroll as part of a positive argument for inauthenticity. If I had formed such an argument, then I would rightfully be expected to back up the premises with evidence. On the other hand, you seem to have formed an argument for authenticity that assumes that an interpolator of the III/IV CE most likely would have been copying Josephus onto codices. Since you are using this speculation as the premise of an argument, it is upon you to support the premise with evidence.

However, you have agreed with me that we do not know the percentage of classical documents in the III/IV CE preserved by Christians that were contained in scroll form. I suggest that we might argue that it is somewhat higher than the 30% figure for non-biblical Christian documents, but how much higher we cannot be sure. And if the figure of 70% scroll-form is just as possible as the figure of 30% scroll-form for the number of manuscripts of the classics preserved by Christians in the III/IV century, then we cannot say with any confidence or likelihood that an interpolator would have been working with a codex. That would be just as baseless as saying that an interpolator would have been working with a scroll, because we do not have any estimate for the important percentage figure -- and the important percentage figure is not that concerning biblical texts or non-biblical Christian texts but rather classical texts preserved in III/IV by Christians. Until you have some data on this class of texts, then you have no idea whether a Christian would have ordered his Josephus a la scroll or a la codex.

Finally, I do not know what you think of the idea that the Testimonium touches on major Christian doctrines such as the divinity and resurrection of Jesus and thus could be acceptable to an interpolator, regardless of the medium, because the passage would be "short and sweet" and to the point. Not every person's style is prolix.

best,
Peter Kirby

[The correct word is 'prolix', not 'effusive'.]

[ August 18, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Kirby ]</p>

Peter Kirby

lcb writes: pete, i respectuflly submit you missed my point, albeit a point i made somewhat hyperbolically...what are the motivations of someone who is adding to/or subtracting from something? if they are a scholarly and learned person living at that time? if they are adding/subtracting with an eye towards many future generations? if they sincerely beleive or conversely are shrewdly manipulating?

Ah, so you wanted to know the motivation of the interpolator. My answer is that there is more than one possibility.

One possibility: the scribe believed that Josephus had to have mentioned Jesus, that therefore a pagan had eliminated the reference, and that inserting the Testimonium would be an act of restoration.

Another possibility: the interpolator loved Josephus, knew that Josephus was himself a Jew who did not write about Jesus, but inserted the Testimonium because it is the kind of thing that Josephus should have said and that would improve the reputation of Josephus among Christians. This is somewhat similar to the forger mentioned by Tertullian who did it for "love of Paul."

A different possibility: the forger lamented the fact that Josephus the Jew did not believe in Jesus Christ, was embarrassed that a first century historian of Palestine would have omitted a discussion of Jesus, and inserted the Testimonium in order to make the Antiquities a work fit for Christian edification.

Yet another possibility: the interpolator thought that by inserting the Testimonium that he and subsequent Christians would have been able to win people over to the cause of Christ by pointing out that Josephus testified that Jesus was more than a man and appeared to his followers on the third day.

One more possibility: Eusebius, who respected the value of Josephus as a historian, thought it useful to have a passage in Josephus in which Josephus attests that Jesus performed true miracles and that the tribe of Christians survived his death, which facts proved that Jesus was not a fraud over against the Greeks.

I am sure that there are more possibilities, but it should be clear that we do not suffer for a lack of plausible motivations for Christian interpolation of this testimony to Jesus Christ.

best,
Peter Kirby

lcb

you missed a possibilty. Jesus was who he said he was. The Son of God who said to feed the hungry, heal the sick, comfort widows and orphans and defend the oppressed.

Vorkosigan

Icb, you didn't ask about the motive of Jesus, you asked for possible motives for an interpolator. Jesus may well have been exactly who the gospels said he was, but that still doesn't explain why a putative interpolator altered Josephus. The two ideas are unrelated.

Witnessing is inappropriate for this forum. Please go over to RRP and posters will be happy to oblige you.

Also, I'd like to thank both Layman and Peter for this wonderful series of posts, which I have enjoyed very much. Just because nobody else is jumping in, doesn't mean we aren't watching. We are!

Vorkosigan

wordsmyth

I would also like to say that I have enjoyed reading this thread (and others like it) a great deal. It has provided me with an abundance of knowledge and insight. I have not added anything to this point because, to be honest, my knowledge of the TF, Josephus, Eusebius, etc. is severely lacking. However, as I said, this thread and others like it have greatly aided my knowledge and understanding so that perhaps I can add something meaningful in the future.

KnightWhoSaysNi

Peter Kirby & Layman,

Perhaps both of you should consider a debate in the Formal Debate and Discussions forum. The topic can be based on this thread or some other matter related to historical arguments for Christianity. I'd be very interested in watching the action.

Peter Kirby

Layman, following Thackeray, argued that the author of our summary of the latter half of the Antiquities was a Jew because the summary refers to "our forefather Abraham."

During transcription, I stumbled across Lightfoot's comment on 1 Clem. 4, "By reason of jealousy our father Jacob ran away from the face of Esau his borther." [Greek DIA ZHLOS hO PATHR hHMWN IAKWB APEDRA APO PROSWPOU HSAU TOU EDELFOU AUTOU]

The comment reads: "From these passages it has been inferred that the writer was a Jewish Christian. The inference however is not valid; since Clement, like S. Paul (Gal. iii. 7, 9, 29, Rom. iv. 11, 18, ix. 6-8) or Justin (Dial. 134), might refer to spiritual rather than actual parentage; comp. 1 Pet. iii. 6 SARRA...HS EGENHQHTE TEKNA. So too Theophilus of Antioch (quoted by Jacobson), though himself a Gentile, speaks of Abraham (ad Autol. iii. 28, comp. iii. 24) and David (iii. 25) as 'our forefather.' To these references add ib. iii. 20." (Lightfoot, _The Apostolic Fathers_, pt. I, vol. 2, p. 23-24)

Theophilus ad Autol. iii can be found here:
<a href="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-43.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-02/anf02-43.htm</a>

"And after the judges they had kings, the first named Saul, who reigned 20 years; then David, our forefather, who reigned 40 years."

"From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. And from the deluge to the time when Abraham our forefather begat a son, 1036 years."

A search of the ANF showed a few more matches.

Gregory Thaumaturgus, The Second Homily
<a href="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-06/anf06-24.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-06/anf06-24.htm</a>
"And again, the first covenant maintained the righteous requirements17 of a divine service, as in the case of our forefather Abraham; but these stood in the inflictions of pain in the flesh by circumcision, until the time of the fulfilment."

Constitutions of the Holy Apostles Book VII
<a href="http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-47.htm" target="_blank">http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/ANF-07/anf07-47.htm</a>
"O God of our holy and blameless fathers, Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, Thy faithful servants; Thou, O God, who art powerful, faithful, and true, and without deceit in Thy promises; who didst send upon earth Jesus Thy Christ to live with men, as a man, when He was God the Word, and man, to take away error by the roots: do Thou even now, through Him, be mindful of this Thy holy Church, which Thou hast purchased with the precious blood of Thy Christ, and deliver it from all evil, and perfect it in Thy love and Thy truth, and gather us all together into Thy kingdom which Thou hast prepared.:

There are also more hits for "<a href="http://www.google.com/search?q=inurl:ccel.org/fathers2/ANF+%22our+father+abraham%22&num=100&hl=en&lr=&ie= UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&filter=0" target="_blank">our father Abraham</a>."

So while this cannot serve as evidence that our abbreviator was a Jew, given these references with similar terminology from Christian writers, the epitomizer may yet be Jewish despite a lack of evidence.

best,
Peter Kirby

[spurious smilies]

[ September 19, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Kirby ]</p>

Layman

Peter,

Thanks for the new information.

Thackeray's argument was twofold: 1) the "forefather Abraham reference"; and 2) stylistic similarities with one of Josephus' assistants.

Any idea if the Greek translatd "forefather" is the same as the Christian parrallels you found?

J. Carleton Paget's recent article concludes that the Table of Contents was not by Josephus, but very early -- lending support to Thackeray. However, I wasn't able to copy that part of the article (ran out of money -- 25 cents a copy!!!!) while at the library. I hope to get the rest of the article soon and see what the basis is for his conclusions. JCP, Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity 52.2 (2001).