Layman

Fair enough, but please remember that my comments were predicated on Lowder's wording.

I hardly think that this is muddying the waters. Rather, it is a point worth clarification.

First, you have admitted that Lowder's point was unclear to you. I agree that it's not clear what he meant. He said that "any tampering" would shift a "heavy burden" to the proponent of partial authenticity. He provided no other indication whether the fact that the remaining text was consistent with the author would be enough to rebut the presumption of interpolation. Such strong language as "heavy burden" at least suggests that remaining textual conformity would be insufficient to rebut the presumption.

Second, when the burden of shifts seems to be an important point to you and Lowder. If you believe that the burden of proof shifts immediately at the sign of "any tampering" then you have a very different idea than I do when I say that the burden of proof should not shift until the entire passage is examined. I don't think that an entire passage becomes presumed inauthentic because you find one word or two (or even more) words that are not of the style as the author, or not in some manuscripts, or not in early citations.

Fair enough, I have not studied the subject much myself. And I'm certainly open to knowing what the experts have to say.

I disagree with the first statement but not with the last statement. The style of the text itself will often be evidence for authenticity. So can citations to that text by other authors.

[quote]However, suppose that we know that either the whole or part of a passage is interpolated. Suddenly, the manuscript evidence is shown to have no weight for this passage. If the manuscript evidence did have weight for this passage, then the manuscript evidence would establish that the whole is authentic - even though we know that the whole or part is inauthentic. That is, trusting the manuscripts concerning this passage would lead to false conclusions.

Therefore, if we are going to believe that part of the passage is authentic, we are going to need something more than the manuscript evidence. (Stylistic evidence could help, for example.)
I think it would depend very much on how we came to know that part of the passage was interpolated. Just "supposing" that some part or whole of a text "may" be corrupt does not give us much to work with. In many cases the only way we will know that part of the passage is inauthentic is by the stylistic evidence, or by external sources citing to the manuscript. In such cases, the same evidence that points to the inauthenticy of some portion of the passage will confirm the authenticity of the other parts of the passage. Therefore, I see no point in going beyond the evidence.

If our strongest evidence that a passage in partly corrupted is stylistic, for example, then we should go no further than that evidence carries us. In some cases, the uncorrupted text may well be incoherent or fail to suggest a coherent reconstruction. That extra step would be enough in my mind to shift the burden.

Another example would be when our stongest evidence of a corrupt part of a text is if we possess external citations to the writing at issue which omit parts of the passage at issue. If there were many and early citations to the text that failed to record the suspect part of the text, then the evidence only goes so far as it does -- that the unreferred to portions of the text are the corrupt portions of the text.

And yet another example would be that we may have some doubts about parts of a passage because some percentage of our manuscript evidence omits parts of a passage. Once again, I see no reason to infer that the entire passage is interpolated in such a case, and no reason to shift the burden of proof.

So again, it seems to me that we cannot simply "assume" that parts of the text were corrupt for our discussion, we must know why or how we know that parts of the text are corrupt.

And we also have the issue of scope. Lowder is unclear about the scope of the assumption of inauthenticity. If a passage is five or six sentences long, and only one or two words in one sentence is corrupt, should we just infer that the pertinent sentence is corrupt or that the entire passge is corrupt?

All in all, I disagree with Lowder's statements to the extent I think I understand it. The "any tampering" standard would be much too high, and the "heavy burden" standard would also be much to high and is, in any event, imprescise. (I don't mean this as a criticism of Lowder, his remark was an off hand one. I only addressed it at your request).

Your version seems more palatable, but I still find it troubling in a number of aspects. It does not take into account "how" we know that a text is partly corrupted. It does not take into account the extent of the corruption or the extent of the assumption of inauthenticity. It does not provide us with a standard to know when the presumption of inauthenticity is rebutted.

Burdens of proof are tricky things, especially outside of the criminal context.

Layman

I do not. All I have learned is what I have read about it. That it was a Syriac translation that was quoted by the Antiochan Patriarch near the latter part of the 12th century. I do not know if the quotation gives any indication of its proximity to the John the Baptist passage.

It seems we disagree about the probative value of the manuscript evidence. If Eusebius did have access to a manuscript that placed the TF after the John the Baptist reference, I find it unlikely that we would lose all trace of it. No manuscript and no other Christian writer confirms this. If Eusebius is the one who -- as you suggest -- popularized the reference and his manuscript placed the TF near John the B., it is at least somewhat surprising that no hint of it has survived.

Additionally, your second theory is highly speculative. Especially in light of the fact that the Eusebius wrote "Church History"-- in which he included the statement, "After this account of John, in the same part of his work, he goes on to speak as follows of our savior...." -- some years after he wrote the Evangelical Demonstration. In the Demonstration, Eusebius places the TF in the 18th book, "when [Josephus] was writing the history of what happened under Pilate, makes mention of our Savior in these words...." In our surviving manuscripts, the TF falls right were Eusebius first said it was: in the section dealing with the reign of Pilate. The reference to John the Baptist, however, falls in a section discussing Herod, not Pilate. Pilate is not mentioned at all in those passages.

So let me see if I understand the sequence of events under this theory. First, Eusebius decides to add a completely fraudulent passage to Josephus' Antiquities (the TF). But instead of adding the interpolation, he waits several years and writes about what he plans to interpolate in two or three different writings. The first reference he makes of the TF places it at least closely to where we find it today: in the passages discussing Pilate's reign. However, Josephus wrote another work and this time placed the (nonexistent) TF after the reference to John. But when he finally gets around to actually adding the fraudulent TF to his manuscript(s) he realizes that it would better belong in the reign of Pilate and so changes his mind again? I simply find this reconstruction of events unpersuasive.

What it seems like you are suggesting is that someone who wrote about the TF imprecisely should not be trusted to have been aware of the TF at all. Is that correct? Does not this translate into the argument that anyone who wrote about the TF imprecisely should also be expected to have invented it altogether? I think that is quite a stretch.

Let me get my magic eighth ball to see. Just kidding. In your opinion, no other church father thought it necessary to "correct" Josephus by adding the TF, yet you are quite willing to accept the theory that Eusebius did just that.

Eusebius' writing style is his own. And let me be more precise. Eusebius is not "correcting" Josephus so much as he is giving his readers the well-known chronology of "John then Jesus" while glossing over the sequence with which the two leaders appear in Josephus.

I guess it depends on your perspective. It is a fact, an important fact to Christians, that Jesus' ministry followed that of John the Baptist. No Christian would have known Paulina or Decius Mundus, but they would know that Jesus' ministry followed that of John the Baptist. It might stick out like a sore thumb to you, but we are talking about the perspective of early Christian scribes, not Josephan scholars. Nevertheless, I think you make a valid point that there would be a temptation to make explicit (altering the text) the implicit (proximity in the text).

Ambrose' reference is different, but what I find most interesting is the failure to quote Josephus as admitting that Jesus was the Christ.

To be fair to myself, I did quote you in full, then I tried to recite your point and asked for an explanation. I appreciate the clarification but your language was confusing. To be clear, what you said was this: After Eusebius, Jerome is the first one to quote the passage. While I am not using this as an argument for inauthenticity, it would suggest at least the plausibility that some manuscripts of the fifth or sixth centuries lacked the passage.

Forgive me but I am still a little confused, I could see how (absent Ambrose) one could argue that the absence of references to the TF between Eusebius and Jerome rendered it "plausable" that fourth century manuscripts lacked the TF. What I did not understand is how (even absent Ambrose) missing citations between Eusebius and Jerome could demonstrate the plausability of the theory that manuscripts from the fifth and sixth centuries. As I understand your point now, it is that, regardless of the citations I have provided, it is still possible that some Josephus manuscripts lacked the TF in them. I do not see how anyone could claim that it was impossible. The best anyone could do is show that it unsupported speculation or improbable.

Just from what I could gather quickly, it appears that Ambrose and Cassidorus -- at least -- were working from manuscripts of Josephus, not simply quoting Eusebius. And as I mentioned above, Ambrose' reference to the TF is missing the claim that Jesus was Christ, something a Christian using a Jewish source would not be likely to omit. One of his main literary accomplishments was to render a latin translation and paraphrase of Josephus' work. As for Cassidorus, he had access -- at least -- to a Latin translation of Josephus produced in Vivarium, Italy.

It would be almost impossible to prove that it was "implausible" that there were some 5th and 6th century manuscripts that did not have the TF in them. All I can do is show that no such manuscripts survived and several Christian writers were aware of the TF (and at least some of them had access to their own versions of Josephus).


It would be interesting to know how more. What is also interesting is that there does not appear to be any great increase in velocity of citing to the TF by Christians until modern times -- when the Jesus-myth idea started to gain lay-adherents. We have 3 references in the fourth century (Eusebius, Ambrose, and Jerome), 2 references fifth century (Isidorus and Sozomen), 1 reference in the sixth century (Cassidorius, early), 1 reference in the seventh century, 1 reference in the eighth century, 2 references in the nine century, 1 reference in the tenth century, 2 references in the 11th century, 3 references in the twelfth century, no references in the thirteenth century, 1 reference in the fourteenth century, and 3 references in the 15th century.

Of course, but I'll give your remaining points priority.

[ July 29, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: Fair enough, but please remember that my comments were predicated on Lowder's wording.

OK.

But, in your most recent post on the issue, you write, "Lowder is unclear about the scope of the assumption of inauthenticity." Why do you bring up Lowder again, after I say that my ideas may be very different from Lowder's?

Layman writes: First, you have admitted that Lowder's point was unclear to you. I agree that it's not clear what he meant. He said that "any tampering" would shift a "heavy burden" to the proponent of partial authenticity. He provided no other indication whether the fact that the remaining text was consistent with the author would be enough to rebut the presumption of interpolation. Such strong language as "heavy burden" at least suggests that remaining textual conformity would be insufficient to rebut the presumption.

In fairness to Lowder, Lowder is describing an objection of which he knows but to which he does not commit himself. If Lowder were attempting to explicate an idea in which he fully believes, Lowder may have used different language, perhaps more reserved and more precise.

Layman writes: Second, when the burden of shifts seems to be an important point to you and Lowder. If you believe that the burden of proof shifts immediately at the sign of "any tampering" then you have a very different idea than I do when I say that the burden of proof should not shift until the entire passage is examined. I don't think that an entire passage becomes presumed inauthentic because you find one word or two (or even more) words that are not of the style as the author, or not in some manuscripts, or not in early citations.

If I did not make it clear enough in my previous post, I will make it clear now that I have not been discussing the idea of a passage for which the evidence for interpolation includes manuscripts or quotes that omit words and present a plausible truncated version. In those cases, since the manuscript or quote evidence preserves the uncorrupted form, then the manuscripts or quotes could indeed be relied upon, while it is the gist of my previous post that the manuscripts or quotes could not be relied upon since it is known that all of these mss. and quotes are wrong about the passage (perhaps wrong about it even being there, but at least wrong in part).

My idea has become a bit more specific since my previous post, and I will touch on that below. Before I do that, however, I must correct another item that somehow got confused in communication.

Layman writes: Just "supposing" that some part or whole of a text "may" be corrupt does not give us much to work with.

I read my post to which you replied very carefully, and I am not sure where you got the word "may" from my post. Are you quoting me?

To clarify, here was my statement: "suppose that we know that either the whole or part of a passage is interpolated." The word "suppose" does not refer to the stance that we take towards the text (e.g., supposing that it is at least partly inauthentic) but rather refers to the supposing of a hypothetical situation (e.g., the situation in which we have a text about which we know that the whole or part of a passage is interpolated). And the word "may" did not come from my post; my post indicated that we know that the whole or part of a passage has been interpolated, not that we merely think that there might have been some interpolation.

Layman writes:

Your version seems more palatable, but I still find it troubling in a number of aspects. It does not take into account "how" we know that a text is partly corrupted. It does not take into account the extent of the corruption or the extent of the assumption of inauthenticity. It does not provide us with a standard to know when the presumption of inauthenticity is rebutted.

My previous post stated that there is not a "presumption of inauthenticity" but rather a default position of skepticism.

Here is my more specific idea, which takes into account how we know that a text is partly corrupted. In presenting a more specific idea, I allow that there may be other ideas that are similar and viable yet not within the scope of my own specific idea presented here. This specific idea is presented because I think that it applies to the TF question.

My more specific idea is this: if a passage contains portions that clearly contradict what we know about a writer's thinking, and if the whole of a passage can be understood as an interpolation to advance the ideas of the text's caretakers, then we are justified in being skeptical about a hypothetical truncated original passage until there is actual evidence for one.

This should answer some of your questions. For the matter of how we know, the answer is that the passage as it stands goes against the author's known opinions. For the matter of the scope of the text that comes into doubt, the portion of the text that is plausibly attributed to the known interpolator for advancing the interpolator's ideas is put in question.

As to the question of what might constitute actual evidence for an authentic core, I will not provide an exhaustive list, as I would not want to rule out evidence that may be valid. If someone found manuscript or quotational attestation for a plausible partial passage, that would work, but we have been talking about passages for which there is no extant quote or manuscript with a plausible original. So, for one actual possibility of evidence for partial authenticity, there might be portions of the passage that could not be credibly attributed to the text's caretakers. This could meet a part of or the whole of the burden of evidence for assuming an authentic original. For another actual possibility, if the surrounding passages require a partly authentic original in order for the text to be coherent, then this also could be counted as evidence for partial authenticity.

Of course, in some cases, it may come to be that we find no good evidence for partial authenticity but also no good evidence for total interpolation. Then we will have to be humble enough to admit that we don't know which of the two hypotheses are correct.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Layman writes: I do not. All I have learned is what I have read about it. That it was a Syriac translation that was quoted by the Antiochan Patriarch near the latter part of the 12th century. I do not know if the quotation gives any indication of its proximity to the John the Baptist passage.

<a href="http://josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf" target="_blank">http://josephus.yorku.ca/pdf/whealey2000.pdf</a>

"This is indicated by the existence of a medieval Syriac version of the Testimonium reading, like Jerome's text, 'he was believed to be the Christ' rather than 'he was the christ.'"

There is a footnote (no. 8). Do you know anything more?

Layman writes: So let me see if I understand the sequence of events under this theory. First, Eusebius decides to add a completely fraudulent passage to Josephus' Antiquities (the TF). But instead of adding the interpolation, he waits several years and writes about what he plans to interpolate in two or three different writings. The first reference he makes of the TF places it at least closely to where we find it today: in the passages discussing Pilate's reign. However, Josephus wrote another work and this time placed the (nonexistent) TF after the reference to John. But when he finally gets around to actually adding the fraudulent TF to his manuscript(s) he realizes that it would better belong in the reign of Pilate and so changes his mind again? I simply find this reconstruction of events unpersuasive.

The reference from the Evangelical Demonstration complicates the hypothesis of post hoc interpolation to the point of absurdity.

Is the hypothesis that different manuscripts of Josephus had the TF in different locations weakened by the E.D. reference?

Layman writes: What it seems like you are suggesting is that someone who wrote about the TF imprecisely should not be trusted to have been aware of the TF at all. Is that correct? Does not this translate into the argument that anyone who wrote about the TF imprecisely should also be expected to have invented it altogether? I think that is quite a stretch.

I asked a question with no stretching involved: "If Eusebius felt free to dissemble as to the location of the TF, can we be confident that Eusebius knew of a manuscript with the TF in the first place?" OK, the question may have been rhetorical, but there is a difference between losing confidence in the ability of Eusebius to quote Josephus accurately and postulating that Eusebius invented the passage. The former is skepticism; the latter is positive disbelief.

Layman writes: In your opinion, no other church father thought it necessary to "correct" Josephus by adding the TF, yet you are quite willing to accept the theory that Eusebius did just that.

My opinion, based on facts, is this: with the possible exception of Eusebius, no church father working from a manuscript of Josephus with the TF in its present place either subconsciously or consciously misled his reader into thinking that the TF came after the JtB passage in Josephus.

Layman writes: Eusebius is not "correcting" Josephus so much as he is giving his readers the well-known chronology of "John then Jesus" while glossing over the sequence with which the two leaders appear in Josephus.

I guess this is a viable hypothesis, and I wrote: "What we need is another good hypothesis, one that takes the fact of the reference from Eusebius seriously yet allows for authenticity." Does any reader think that Layman's hypothesis is not viable?

If this hypothesis has no serious problems, then the argument (5b) is not a strong one. I can indicate what I think about the argument in the next recension of my article.

Can we move on to other, perhaps stronger, arguments?

Layman writes: As I understand your point now, it is that, regardless of the citations I have provided, it is still possible that some Josephus manuscripts lacked the TF in them. I do not see how anyone could claim that it was impossible. The best anyone could do is show that it unsupported speculation or improbable.

Remember that this is not my argument. I am not using this as an argument for inauthenticity. If I were, then I would need something more than unsupported speculation.

A possible argument for authenticity runs like this: No manuscripts of Josephus in the fifth century lacked the Testimonium. It is not likely that an interpolation by Eusebius could have propagated so quickly to all manuscripts. Therefore, Eusebius didn't interpolate the Testimonium.

Is this an argument that you would like to defend? If so, then I would be interested in how we could show it to be improbable that there was a manuscript in the fifth century that lacked the TF. (Note: there is no evidence AFAIK for such a manuscript, but I am not claiming that one exists; the hypothetical person advancing this positive argument for authenticity is claiming that such a manuscript did not exist.)

Layman writes: And as I mentioned above, Ambrose' reference to the TF is missing the claim that Jesus was Christ, something a Christian using a Jewish source would not be likely to omit.

The reference from Ambrose is missing the whole chunk between 'doer of wonderful works' and 'who appeared to his disciples'. I don't know that we can deduce anything about what was contained in the manuscript of Ambrose between these two phrases.

Layman writes: It would be almost impossible to prove that it was "implausible" that there were some 5th and 6th century manuscripts that did not have the TF in them.

And you don't have to provide any proof at all, so long as you are not using the alleged non-existence of such manuscripts as an argument for authenticity (or against interpolation by Eusebius).

Layman writes: We have 3 references in the fourth century (Eusebius, Ambrose, and Jerome), 2 references fifth century (Isidorus and Sozomen), 1 reference in the sixth century (Cassidorius, early), 1 reference in the seventh century, 1 reference in the eighth century, 2 references in the nine century, 1 reference in the tenth century, 2 references in the 11th century, 3 references in the twelfth century, no references in the thirteenth century, 1 reference in the fourteenth century, and 3 references in the 15th century.

What is your source for this?

Layman writes: Of course, but I'll give your remaining points priority.

I look forward to further discussion.

best,
Peter Kirby

Layman

No, and Whealey's article was the basis for my information. You have obviously done more research in this area than I have. It was your article that prompted me to take a much closer look at Josephus studies. And while I've found some excellent sources, I've actually been frustrated by the lack of accessible works on the subject.

And I've also been frustrated by my inability to find a copy of the Evangelical Demonstration anywhere. Do you know of any that are available for purchase? Not even the main public library near me (one of the biggest in the world) has a copy of it.

I agree, the ED reference is very damaging to the idea that Eusebius decided to add the reference after already having wrote about it twice in the manner that he did.

As for your question, I am not sure. It is my initial impression that it makes it less likely.

I also think it renders my theory that Eusbius was 'glossing' the John/Jesus sequence in Church History more likely.

I appreciate the distinction. Certainly if we knew that Eusebius never "glossed" his sources and always quoted exactly, we would have more confidence in his abilities. But I think the "gloss" I suggested is far from suggesting that he was unaware of any TF at all.

Sure thing. I just wanted to add that the ED reference may make this hypothesis more likely.

[quote]Layman writes: As I understand your point now, it is that, regardless of the citations I have provided, it is still possible that some Josephus manuscripts lacked the TF in them. I do not see how anyone could claim that it was impossible. The best anyone could do is show that it unsupported speculation or improbable.

Remember that this is not my argument. I am not using this as an argument for inauthenticity. If I were, then I would need something more than unsupported speculation.

Like I said, we could never know if "all" the Josephus manuscripts of the fifth century had the TF in them. But I think that the existence of five citations to the TF from the fourth to the sixth century has some tendeny in reason to show that more than just one manuscript tradition (Eusebius') had the TF in it. It's not a very strong argument perhaps, but it has some probative value.

Maybe we can. It was only 30 years after Eusebius wrote. And the most interesting omission is the failure to note that Josephus called Jesus the messiah. Would a Christian using the TF to show that Josephus was aware of Jesus neglect to note that this Jewish author believed that Jesus was the messiah? Ambrose' purpose was very clear, to show that "even the Jews bear witness" to Jesus.

I think we are excluding the middle here. We do not have to prove that no manuscript possibly omitted the TF to point out that given the 5 references to the TF by other Christian writers in the 4th to 6th centuries, it it seems likely that there were other manuscripts with the TF in them.

We do not have to prove that all Josephas manuscripts had the TF in it to make the Eusebius interpolation theory less likely. We just have to show that it is likely that at leaset one other Christian writers was aware of a manuscript tradition not dependent on Eusebius but did have a form of the TF in it. I find the Ambrose reference the most relevant and probative on this point.

The Complete Works of Josephus, Trns. by William Whiston, Appendix One, "The Testimonies of Josephus Concerning Jesus Christ."

Yes, I can tell we both want to move on to the rest of your points. They may take some more time, but I will -- of course -- email you when I post a fresh thread on any of the additional points.

Again, thank you for your patience.

Forgive the edits, having problems getting my quotations correct.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Bede

It might not be a lot of help, but I believe the ED is included in Migne's huge collection of Patristic writings with a Latin translation. No English version exists AFAIK.

Migne's volumes are usually present in the biggest libraries. They are not common but that is what you want to look for if, like me, you can handle Latin and not Greek.

Yours

Bede

<a href="http://www.bede.org.uk" target="_blank">Bede's Library - faith and reason</a>

Layman

Thanks for the information Bede. When you say there are no English translations, do you mean of Migne's works, or of the ED?

In any event, and unfortunately, I cannot handle Latin and Greek.

Layman

Well, I had not realized that we had completely disposed of Lowder's statement. So I summed up my thoughts on his statement and your version of the rule. And, to be blunt, I was being a bit defensive. You accused me of "muddying the waters" about Loweder's statement and I wanted to respond to that characterization.

I agree with you. Which is why I said later in my post, that (I don't mean this as a criticism of Lowder, his remark was an off hand one. I only addressed it at your request).

Nope, my mistake. I do apologize. I was using the quotes for emphasis. Rather inexcusable considering the alternatives of the italics or bold. However, in my own (weak) defense I am not very good at the internal symbols (as my previous post and its three edit lines suggests).

Honestly, I do not see that the use of the term "may" posed any problem. My problem was that the analogy was too general to offer us much guidance. An analogy that bears little relationship to the situation that the rule it produces will be applied is not a very useful tool. That is why I suggested that we must "know how we know" before proceeding.

Very true, please substitute "skepticism" in the above Layman quote for "inauthenticity."

How do we know what ideas the interpolator is trying to advance? In most cases, other than generalized suspicions, we will discover the interpolator's intent by the portions of the text that we know are corrupt. In Josephus, for example, it appears from the certain interpolations that the author was advancing the notion of Christology ("He was the Christ") and the resurrection ("He appeared to them ...."). That doesn't require us to think that the text was added with the intent to show Jesus' mere existence, or that he was a 'wise man,' or that he attracted Gentile and Jewish followers, or even that he did wondorous deeds.

And this gets into what I discussed above -- severability and coherence. If the interpolations are severable and the remaining text coherent (or simply reconstructed) then there is little or no basis to presume skepticism.

I am curious what the textual critics have to say about this. I'll see if Aland and Metzger have anything relevant.

In some cases yes.

[ July 30, 2002: Message edited by: Layman ]</p>

Peter Kirby

I wrote:

Here is my more specific idea, which takes into account how we know that a text is partly corrupted. In presenting a more specific idea, I allow that there may be other ideas that are similar and viable yet not within the scope of my own specific idea presented here. This specific idea is presented because I think that it applies to the TF question.

My more specific idea is this: if a passage contains portions that clearly contradict what we know about a writer's thinking, and if the whole of a passage can be understood as an interpolation to advance the ideas of the text's caretakers, then we are justified in being skeptical about a hypothetical truncated original passage until there is actual evidence for one.

This should answer some of your questions. For the matter of how we know, the answer is that the passage as it stands goes against the author's known opinions. For the matter of the scope of the text that comes into doubt, the portion of the text that is plausibly attributed to the known interpolator for advancing the interpolator's ideas is put in question.

Layman writes:

How do we know what ideas the interpolator is trying to advance? In most cases, other than generalized suspicions, we will discover the interpolator's intent by the portions of the text that we know are corrupt. In Josephus, for example, it appears from the certain interpolations that the author was advancing the notion of Christology ("He was the Christ") and the resurrection ("He appeared to them ...."). That doesn't require us to think that the text was added with the intent to show Jesus' mere existence, or that he was a 'wise man,' or that he attracted Gentile and Jewish followers, or even that he did wondorous deeds.

And this gets into what I discussed above -- severability and coherence. If the interpolations are severable and the remaining text coherent (or simply reconstructed) then there is little or no basis to presume skepticism.


Skepticism is not a presumption; skepticism is the opposite of presumption.

If it is impossible to posit an original core that is coherent, then we know that the passage is a total interpolation. If it is possible to posite an original core that is coherent, there may have been an original core, or the passage may have been a total interpolation. Coherence is a precondition of the possibility of a hypothetical original; it is not enough to show that the partial authenticity hypothesis is correct.

When I stated the condition that "the whole of a passage can be understood as an interpolation to advance the ideas of the text's caretakers," I meant that the entire passage as it stands can be understood as advancing the interpolator's ideas, not that each individual phrase was something that an interpolator was out to prove over against skeptics. The main purpose may have been to show that Josephus testified to the divinity and resurrection (and perhaps miracles), with the rest of the passage being included so as to make it coherent (it would not do to interpolate the sentence "Jesus was the son of God and was raised from the dead" and nothing else). When I placed this condition that the passage as a whole can be understood as advancing the interpolator's ideas, I meant to answer the question of scope, against such a thing as this: "Pilate used funds from the Temple tax to build an aqueduct. I love Jesus. The Jews were upset by Pilate's misappropriation of funds." Obviously, in such a case, we do not have to throw out the whole passage, as it does not make sense that an interpolator would have inserted this passage on the aqueduct in order to slip in the sentence about Jesus. On the other hand, with a passage devoted to Jesus, in which Jesus works miracles and is the Messiah and is raised from the dead, it is obviously plausible that the whole passage is a Christian interpolation.

best,
Peter Kirby

Peter Kirby

Bede writes: It might not be a lot of help, but I believe the ED is included in Migne's huge collection of Patristic writings with a Latin translation. No English version exists AFAIK.

There is Proof of the Gospel, translated by Ferrar circa 1920 and reprinted in 1981. I have ordered it, and I might even find time to scan it and place it on the web.

Roger Pearse has this page regarding editions and translations of Eusebius:

<a href="http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/works.htm" target="_blank">http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/eusebius/works.htm</a>

best,
Peter Kirby