Vinnie

"On the level of the literal sense, exegesis that embraces what the evangelist did not actually convey in writing becomes very speculative."

"A "hermeneutics of suspicion" detects conscious or unconscious suppression by an author--often supression of what one would like to find there or thinks should have been there. Aloowance must be made, however, that the "suppressed" idea never occured to the ancient writer."

Raymond Brown & RB paraphrased

Vinnie

Toto

Egads, you added a lot to this post after you first posted it.

I have not read much of Eusebius. In one of my previous discussions with Bede or his sock puppet, Eusebius was described as "clumsy" and "boring", so I would not put it past him to invent some passage and not use it to the full extent he would have if he had been really smart.

I think that the strength of Olson's argument is identifying the thought patterns and issues in the TF with those of Eusebius. I don't think that his argument requires that he show that Eusebius actually made full use of the forged passage, beyond quoting it. That's all I'm saying (for now).

Layman

Yep.

So let me get this straight. You have not read any of the material at issue. You are basing your entire assessment on two words that others used to describe him in a thread on this site (the "Eusebius the Liar" thread by chance)?

So according to you, Eusebius was intelligent and capable enough to draft a TF using uniquely Josephan language and style, a forgery that has fooled most scholars (whether Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or Secular) but too "clumsy" and "boring" to make any use of his own interpolation in his arguments? Except for one clause that relied on a rather problematic passage?

In fact, he was so "clumsy" and "boring" he makes no mention of the TF in the entire book that includes a section devoted to the arguments from prophecy. Nor does he raise, cite, allude to, or reference the TF in the chapter devoted to refuting the claim Jesus was a wizard.

The truth is that most commentators do think that Eusebius was unimaginative. He cut and paste from his sources. Kinda just strung them together. His theology was not very deep nor necessarily consistent. Not the kind of background that lends itself to intelligently crafting such an interpolation. And not very conducive to carrying the burden of poof in claiming he was the interpolator.

And there are important "thought patterns" of Eusebius missing from the TF. Indeed, some of Eusebius' most important arguments against the charge of wizardry are nowhere to be found in the TF.

Most notably, perhaps, is Eusebius' argument that Jesus and Christians were exorcists who drove demons away -- whereas wizardry requires the assistance of demons. In AH, Eusebius argues that Appollonius must have cooperated with demons to accomplish his "miracles," whereas Jesus and his followers are known for driving demons away (AH 4, Proof of the Gospel, Bk. III, Ch. 6 (132-33)), Eusebius notes that it is well-known that wizardry is accomplished by cooperating with demons (Id., Eusebius goes so far as to accuse Appollonius of using demons to accomplish his miracles).

Eusebius also goes on to argue about how important it was that Jesus and his followers would take no money for their works. He also notes that Jesus' followers were strictly forbidden to tolerate lustful thoughts or engage in sexual immorality.

And Eusebius focuses in on how Jesus never used incantations or incense and that his followers caused others to burn their witchcraft books and leave such a life behind.

None of this, however, is mentioned in the TF. The failure of the TF to mention Jesus' (or his followers') ministry of exorcisms substantially undercuts any argument that the TF "tracks" or "correlates" Eusebius' apologetic thought pattern.

Additionally, the failure of the TF to mention the content of Jesus' teachings -- especially the selling of wordly goods , the prohibition on accepting support, and commandments against lust -- is also inexplicable given their importance to his apologetics arguments against accusations of wizardry.

In other words, the "correlation" is forced, and missing some of the elements Eusebius found most important for his argument.

C'mon Toto, let it go (or at least read some of the relevant souces). You might impress some people if you finally find just one argument undercutting Christianity to be unpersuasive.

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

Toto

I have read some of the material at issue, but not all of it and not in Greek. I am not basing my entire assessment on the two words that I quoted, which you seem to agree are accurate. Why are you trying to be so disagreeable?

His forgery has not in fact fooled most scholars. Most of them spotted it as a complete forgery until Meier put together a case for a partial interpolation, and then the fashion swung towards accepting that possibility. But Meier's case may be coming unraveled.

And also not the kind of background that would allow you to conclude that he would have made a better use of it.

I'm not out to impress you. I am not totally persuaded of Olson's argument yet, but I don't think that rejecting it would shore up the sorry state of Christianity, and I don't think that proving it would bring Christianity down any more than proving the Shroud to be a fraud undermined the one true church.

And I've got other work to do.

Layman

What is your basis for this whopper?

Are you talking about Meier's argument in "A Marginal Jew", published in 1990? You are seriously claiming that until 1990 most scholars favored complete-interpolation and it was Meier that made the difference?

As usual, you don't know what you are talking about. Since the 30s a strong majority of scholars have favored complete or partial authenticity of the TF. In other words, the majority of the scholarly community decisively accepted the TF decades before Meier wrote "A Marginal Jew."

Perhaps the most respected Josephan scholar ever, John Thackeray -- who had originally accepted the full-interpolation theory -- lead the charge in changing scholarly opinion by changing his opinion and arguing for partial-authenticity of the TF in 1930s. Was Meier even born by then?

Between 1964 and 1974 leading scholars such as Andre Pelletier, Louis Feldman, Paul Winter, A. Dubarle, Ernst Bammel, and Otto Betz published their arguments for partial-authenticity.

In 1982 leading Josephus scholar Louis Feldman wrote that majority of scholars favored partial-authenticity of the TF. Louis H. Feldman, "The Testimonium Flavianum, The State of the Question," Christological Perspectives, Eds. Robert F. Berkley and Sarah Edwards, at 184.

He noted in his "Josephus and Modern Scholarship" that from 1937 until 1980, 39 scholars had argued that the TF was either completely or partially genuine and that only 13 scholars had argued that it was a complete interoplation.

Peter Kirby's own research showed that "In my own reading of thirteen books since 1980 that touch upon the passage, ten out of thirteen argue the Testimonium to be partly genuine, while the other three maintain it to be entirely spurious. Coincidentally, the same three books also argue that Jesus did not exist." Of course, those "three" were not even really by New Testament scholars or historians (including Doherty and Freke/Grandy).

In 1987 the respected Jewish scholar Geza Vermes argued for partial-authenticity of the TF in the Journal of Jewish Studies. "The Jesus Notice of Josephus Re-Examined," JST (1982).

So tell me Toto, where did you get the idea that the tide has only recently changed because of Meier? And where is the evidence that Meier's argument is coming "unravelled?"

Layman

Actually, yes, it is. It's not much to expect him to actually refer to, site to, allude to, or quote the argument within the context he's trying to use it. Eusebius shows himself of being capable of that and uses the Gospels, Acts, and others to such use. The man wasn't an idiot, he just wasn't a leading intellect.

Under your theory, Eusebius was intelligent enough to write a TF that has made such good use of Josephan style and language that he has fooled the critical scholarly community, but he was too stupid to use it. Of course this is directly contrary to your earlier argument that Eusebius was too smart to actully use any of that invention for his own arguments, except for one passage which is historically problematic if written by a Christian (but understandable if written by Josephus). In effect, you conjure up a poor counterfitter who intentionally creates a bill he knows he is too fake to use. Or, a poor counterfitter who creates a fake bill that is impressive but he's too stupid to spend it.

I'd like to also note that you have now argued that Eusebius was too smart to use the TF that he invented and too stupid to use the TF that he invented. Congratulations. Let's chart out the progression.

1. Eusebius used the TF to support his apologetic arguments. This shows that he invented the TF.

2. Eusebius did not use the TF to support his apologetic arguments. This shows he invented the TF.

This argument has been made to accomadate different assumptions:

a. Eusebius is smart. The failure of Eusebis to use the TF to support his apologetic arguments shows he invented it the because he was too smart to make it too obvious.


b. Eusebius is stupid. The failure of Eusebius to use the TF to support his apologetic arguments shows he invented it because he was too stupid to use his own invention effectively -- or much at all.

3. Whether or not the TF is used to support E's apologetic purposes, it shows he invented it because it "correlates" with his apologetic arguments.

When I point out important ways in which the TF does not correlate with E's apologetic arguments, this is the counterargument: I'm not out to impress you.

Perhaps now Toto can come up with an argument to cover the fact that the TF does not track Eusebius' apologetic arguments. Then he could have ALL of the bases covered!

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

Toto

Perhaps I an in error. But I recall the dispute we had over the late Gordon Stein's piece in the II library, and in looking into it, it appeared that when he wrote it, the idea that the Testimonium was a complete forgery was more popular, and that Meier's influence or persuasiveness made the partial interpolation the more popular interpretation. But I don't have the time now to track that down. When I find the reference, I will post it.

Layman

You are right that Stein claims that no scholar believes the TF was authentic. But this was not an accurate reflection of the scholarly community, it was a gross distortion by Stein (the great Physiologist).

Stein wrote in 1982 by the way.

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

Layman

Any luck yet?

Toto

I have tracked down part of what gave me the idea, but I think there is more. But this is not a burning issue with me. I am not particularly interested in talking a poll of how many scholars go one way or another, as if that proves anything on this issue.

From <a href="http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/supp10.htm" target="_blank">Doherty' essay</a>:

I can guess that Doherty is speaking of relatively secular or liberal Christian scholars.