Peter Kirby

Note that Aland and Aland say that Christians "did not use the scroll format for their own writings." Metzger's high percentages for biblical documents and other Christian writings shows a preference of Christian writers for the use of the codex, though not an unbreakable rule. But the data on the Bible and Christian writings does not tell us how many of the classical manuscripts preserved by Christians in the third and fourth centuries were still using the scroll. I know that it is difficult if not impossible to determine whether a fragment of a classical manuscript of the third or fourth century came from a pagan scribe or a Christian scribe. But that very difficulty dictates that we be reticent; we know only that the percentage of Christian-preserved classical manuscripts preserved in codex form in the fourth century is between the percentage of pagan-preserved classical manuscripts and Christian-preserved Christian documents. We know that the percentage of use of the codex for classical manuscripts presrved by Christians is lower than the percentage of use of the codex for Christian documents because the pagan classics were originally written on scrolls for the most part, while the Christian documents were originally written on codices for the most part. What we do not know, without more data, is exactly how much lower the percentage of pagan classics preserved on codex by Christian scribes is. But that is the figure that you would need to calculate in order to say that a Christian-preserved Josephus in the third or fourth century would probably be written on codices.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

I looked at the volume by Thackeray last yesterday, but Thackeray doesn't say anything much more about the matter than what is given in your quotes. It would be nice to have more information, particularly on how Thackeray knows that an assistant of Josephus was involved. But I now agree that it is plausible that a non-Christian Jew wrote the summary.

The argument is not nearly so strong if the scribe were not Christian. But the argument does not lose all force. First, there is my conclusion that the scribe, whoever he was, made reference to most of the sections of the eighteenth book. Second, there is the fact that the Latin translation refers to John the Baptist but not Jesus, which is a separate argument. So I do not think that we can happily disregard the evidence from the summary, but it doesn't settle the case either.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

Considering that we started with almost zilch information about the Summary of Contents, I think we've made real progress on this one.

Layman

Is that true of the New Testament? I recall reading about how some scholars thought that the size and content for Luke/Acts was somewhat dictated by scroll size. If so, then they must have converted it to Codices very quickly.

Well, your original point was based on nothing but speculation to begin with -- speculating that the copies of Josephus were preserved by scrolls rather than codices. I agree that Metzger seems to focus on writings original to Christians. Although it is far from clear that all Christian writings were originally on codices. Be that as it may, we have here a clear Christian preference to use codices rather than scrolls. And it seems that some early Christian writings (such as Luke and Acts) were written on scrolls, but Christians transferred them to codices.

Given this rathter unique Christian preference for a certain writing material and style, I think your point becomes overly speculative.

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: Is that true of the New Testament? I recall reading about how some scholars thought that the size and content for Luke/Acts was somewhat dictated by scroll size. If so, then they must have converted it to Codices very quickly.

Several Christian documents were probably written originally on scrolls and converted to codices, including (I would think) the letters of Paul and of Ignatius. Of course, this does not show that all writings originally on scrolls were transferred to codex format. Metzger notes that (at least) thirty-five non-biblical Christian documents were preserved on scrolls.

Layman writes:

Well, your original point was based on nothing but speculation to begin with -- speculating that the copies of Josephus were preserved by scrolls rather than codices. I agree that Metzger seems to focus on writings original to Christians. Although it is far from clear that all Christian writings were originally on codices. Be that as it may, we have here a clear Christian preference to use codices rather than scrolls. And it seems that some early Christian writings (such as Luke and Acts) were written on scrolls, but Christians transferred them to codices.

Given this rathter unique Christian preference for a certain writing material and style, I think your point becomes overly speculative.

This response does not apply because it overlooks the matter of who is advancing an argument and who is replying. The argument was advanced that a scribe would have written a longer passage if he were inserting a Testimonium into Josephus. In reply, it was noted that the interpolator could quite well have been working with scrolls, which would make it difficult to interpolate much more material. In order to discredit the notion that the Antiquities may have been transmitted in scroll format, it was said that Christians preferred the codex with such evidence as that 70% of the non-biblical Christian documents before 400 were found in codices. In reply, it was noted that the classics may have been preserved on scrolls more often than Christian documents. Perhaps 40% of the classics preserved by Christians in the early fourth century were written on codices. I say 'perhaps' because we have no good data, because it is difficult to know if a fragment comes from a Christian scribe or a pagan scribe. So I say that we don't know, based on generalized considerations, just how likely it is that the Antiquities were preserved in scroll format for the interpolator. This means that the interpolator may very well have been working with scrolls. It was claimed that the interpolator was probably working with a codex, but this was not demonstrated. This means that the interpolator may very well have been constricted to writing a somewhat brief passage. It was claimed that the interpolator would have written something longer, but this was not demonstrated. I have never claimed that we know that the interpolator was using a scroll, and I certainly have not used that claim as the basis of an argument. I have been responding to an argument and showing where it may break down.

If this whole thing was just a counter-argument of the argument for short length in favor of inauthenticity (and not an actual argument for authenticity), I agree that both arguments from short length are equally worthless.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Concerning my statement: "There may be a difference overlooked here: the importance of medium. I presume that the reviser of Josephus who produced the Slavonic recension was working with the codex. The codex makes it easy to add a few more pages at the end of a work. But Josephus was originally published in scrolls, and Josephus may have still been transmitted in scrolls in the fourth century. As I understand it, many scrolls were sold at a fixed length, roughly the size of a Matthew or a Luke. Whoever commissioned the copy of Josephus to be made most likely ordered the scrolls to be of sufficient length and not much longer to hold the books of the Antiquities as it stood. This means that the scribe could have inserted as much as perhaps 100 words into a scroll if he compensated for the greater length by writing smaller, using smaller margins, and so on. But interpolations such as are found in the Slavonic Josephus may not have been an option -- assuming, of course, that the scribe even had a desire to write a very long interpolation. He may have been pleased with the Testimonium as we have it."

Perhaps this could be misunderstood. I say, "Josephus may have still been transmitted in scrolls in the fourth century." That is true and reflects my opinion. Then I say, "Whoever commissioned the copy of Josephus to be made most likely ordered the scrolls to be of sufficient length and not much longer to hold the books of the Antiquities as it stood." This should be understood, "Whoever commissioned the copy of Josephus to be made, if he was working with scrolls, most likely ordered the scrolls to be of sufficient length and not much longer to hold the books of the Antiquities as it stood." I do not claim that there was an interpolator who used the scroll form. I do await evidence that an interpolator would not have been using the scroll form.

By the way, there is also the matter of whether an interpolator would have been satisfied with the Testimonium as it stands. I think that an interpolator could very well have been satisfied with the glowing review of Jesus - short and sweet, as it were - regardless of whether he was using a scroll or a codex. It is just that, if the scribe was working with a scroll, which has not been disproven in any way, then not only would the scribe have been satisfied with a succinct statement like the Testimonium but the scribe would also have to be satisfied with it. Either way, though, I see no compelling reason to think that the Testimonium would be unsatisfactory to an interpolator.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

[quote]Originally posted by Peter Kirby:
And I was showing how one of your counter-points was too speculative to give us much help. I do not argue that my rejoinder about the codices vs. scrolls itself proved that the interpolation would have been longer had it been a complete one. All I offered the Aland and Metzger information for was to rebut one point: your assertion that the shortness of the TF could be explained by limitations placed on the interpolator by scroll length.

By showing that Christians preferred to use codies I showed that your counter-point was too speculative to add to the argument. To the extent anyone agreed with me that a "complete" Christian interpolator would likely have written a longer account (as found in the Slavonic Jewish Wars), but accepted your point that a scroll format might have prevented him from doing so, the response that Christians preferred codices would have some relevance.

Peter Kirby

Layman writes:

And I was showing how one of your counter-points was too speculative to give us much help. I do not argue that my rejoinder about the codices vs. scrolls itself proved that the interpolation would have been longer had it been a complete one. All I offered the Aland and Metzger information for was to rebut one point: your assertion that the shortness of the TF could be explained by limitations placed on the interpolator by scroll length.

By showing that Christians preferred to use codies I showed that your counter-point was too speculative to add to the argument. To the extent anyone agreed with me that a "complete" Christian interpolator would likely have written a longer account (as found in the Slavonic Jewish Wars), but accepted your point that a scroll format might have prevented him from doing so, the response that Christians preferred codices would have some relevance.

You have not shown that Christians in III/IV CE preferred codices for the classics.

You have quoted a scholar indicating that about 30% of non-biblical Christian theological documents were preserved on scrolls prior to 400 CE.

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?

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

If the percentage of classic works preserved by Christians on scrolls in the III/IV century may be somewhere in the range of 30% to 70%, just how strong is the argument that the copy of Josephus used by an interpolator could not have been part of the many manuscripts of the classics that were transmitted in the scroll format?

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

My information is not that specific. But it does suggest that Christians preferred codices in general.

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.

Well, we are both being speculative to the extent we are guessing whether Antiquities was copied onto scrolls or codices. But I at least have some evidence that Christains preferred to use codices. It is not directly on point, but it is stronger than any alternative indications that they were likely to have used a scroll.

I never said that they "could not have" used a scroll, I said that in light of the Christian preference for using codices in general, it is too speculative to claim the reason the passage may not have been longer is because of the use of scrolls. It's a matter of probability and likelihoods.

[ August 12, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

lcb

if you're gonna lie, why not tell a big lie...write out a bunch of perjured "eyewitness" statements of roman soldiers saying they saw the stone roll away and angels appear and Jesus walk out of the tomb.....put their regimental seals on the documents and hide them in jars in a cave....i mean, if you are going to go to the trouble of conjuring up a fake religion out of whole cloth, then do it up big.....on the other hand, if you are sincere and a first century witness just trying to tell it in your own words as best you can , along with other untrained non-professional observers....