Freethought & Rationalism Archive

JoeWallack · 08-18-2013, 03:12 PM

Say It Aint So Joe. Testimonium Flavium. Will Eusebius Be Convicted In Civil Court? Part II

JW:
This Thread is a continuation of my previous Thread:

Say It Ain't So Joe. Testimonium Flavium. Will Eusebius Be Convicted In Civil Court?

possibly the greatest Thread ever inventorying (proof-texting) evidence that Eusebius may have been the Creator or at least Discoverer of the TF. Evidence for this conclusion (convicting Eusebius, not my Thread, of being Great) has recently been stoked in higher criticism circles by Dr. Richard Carrier:

The Testimonium Flavianum

who invokes possibly the second most foremost Eusebian critic Ken Olson and his foremost related article:

Olson A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum 2013

in offense of Eusebius.

While my own opinion of Eusebius (you say "Eusebias" I say Eusebs) is that he was a lying, cheatin, no-good, low-down, double-dealing, double-Crossing Monssouri scum, for those who require more than just my say-so to convict him (like evidence), I previously postured the following:

Quote:

CIRCUMSTANTIAL

1) Discovery

1 - No evidence for the TF before Eusebius

1) General silence - expectation that if the
TF existed it would have been used due to its importance
to Christianity.

2) Specific silence - http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/josephus/

ca.140’s CE Justin Martyr

For the Cave, consider that Justin was a philosopher in
Rome and his interests were:

1) Jesus

2) 1st century Israel

3) Arguing with Pagan and Jewish philosophers

The related question should be:

Why wouldn't Justin be familiar with Josephus?

I also wonder if the Cave is even willing to concede that
extant Church Father writings prove the Fathers could
read and write. Maybe they just dictated, or maybe they
became blind or maybe they were temporarily sight-
impared while Josephus was in front of them.

ca.170’s CE Theophilus - uses Josephus

ca.180’s CE Irenaeus - uses Josephus

ca.190’s CE Clement of Alexandria - uses Josephus

ca.200’s CE Tertullian - uses Josephus

ca.200’s CE Minucius Felix - uses Josephus

ca.210’s CE Hippolytus - uses Josephus

ca.220’s CE Sextus Julius Africanus - uses Josephus

ca.230’s CE Origen - uses Josephus

ca.240’s CE Cyprian

ca.270’s CE Anatolius - uses Josephus

ca.290’s CE Arnobius

ca.300’s CE Methodius - uses Josephus

ca.300’s CE Lactantius

Of the 14 Fathers here who show no awareness of the TF
10 show use of Josephus. Comically, Roger Pearse started this
list in order to demonstrate that the Fathers in general would
have no interest in Josephus and ends up demonstrating that
the conclusion he disputes is correct.
2 - Evidence that the TF was created during the career of Eusebius

2) Familiarity - Parallels to Eusebius' own Adversus Hieroclem.

3) Language - The key phrases are generally Eusebian and not Josephan.

4) Context - The context of the TF is contrary to Josephus.

5) Manuscript - Relative uniformity of the TF post Eusebian.

6) Lack of any coherent argument for originality.

JW:
I'd like to point out in general that when there is a position that is generally thought of as being a problem for Christianity, there is no shortage of Christian Internet authors inspired by Motive & Opportunity attempting articles questioning the generally accepted problem, such as the ending of "Mark":

The End of The Word According to Gar. Was the Original Ending of "Mark" Lost?

Going the other way, Christianity generally thinks that Josephus is support for HJ so there is little Motive & Opportunity attempting articles questioning this support. Ken Olson has largely been the beneficiary of this lack of interest and his resulting articles are illustrative that the subject world is like a great big Peshutty waiting to get phoenucked.

One of his primary points in general is superior literary parallels between the TF and Eusebius than the TF and Josephus. In his latest effort he gives even more specific parallels between the TF and Eusebius to the point of simultaneously showing off/looking like he is not even trying. He goes beyond this though to demonstrating a complete parallel in context between the TF and Eusebius.

This parallel is in:

Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920) -- Book 3

courtesy of our own Roger Pearse.

The offending verses:

Quote:

And here it will not be inappropriate for me to make use of the evidence of the Hebrew Josephus 76 as |143 well, who in the eighteenth chapter of The Archaeology of the Jews, in his record of the times of Pilate, mentions our Saviour in these words:

"And Jesus arises at that time, a wise man, if it is befitting to call him a man. For he was a doer of no common works, a teacher of men who reverence truth. And he gathered many of the Jewish and many of the Greek race. This was Christus; and when Pilate (c) condemned him to the Cross on the information of our rulers, his first followers did not cease to revere him. For he appeared to them the third day alive again, the divine prophets having foretold this, and very many other things about him. And from that time to this the tribe of the Christians has not failed." 77

Olson commentary:

Quote:

What Eusebius is seeking to show in Book III is that Jesus has not only a human nature, but a divine one as well. He goes about this by arguing that Jesus’ coming as Christ was foretold in prophecy, that he was not a deceiver but a teacher of true doctrines, that he performed superhuman feats, and that he did not perform these feats by sorcery. At the end of Book III, Eusebius concludes that a man who was not a sorcerer but a man of good character (as Porphyry himself allowed he was), yet could perform wonders beyond human ability,must necessarily have been superhuman in his nature.19
As an ostensibly outside witness to the fact that the man Jesus was not merely human in his nature but evidenced the things foretold of the Christ in prophecy, the Testimonium repre-sents an encapsulation of Eusebius’ argument. It therefore has its most plausible Sitz-im-Leben
in the pagan-Christian controversies of the fourth century. This was the period in which the question of whether Jesus was merely a wise man or
something more was being debated. The first half of the Testimonium
seems to address precisely this issue.

JW:
Olson's argument is that ALL of the points of the TF are needed for Eusebius' surrounding conceptual argument. So good candidates for the relationship explanation are either that Eusebius outright edited or at least used a questionable source for Josephus here or tailored his entire lengthy related argument to one paragraph of Josephus that everyone would agree was not originally written by Josephus. Olson prefers the former.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

Grog · 08-18-2013, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeWallack

Say It Aint So Joe. Testimonium Flavium. Will Eusebius Be Convicted In Civil Court? Part II

JW:
This Thread is a continuation of my previous Thread:

Say It Ain't So Joe. Testimonium Flavium. Will Eusebius Be Convicted In Civil Court?

possibly the greatest Thread ever inventorying (proof-texting) evidence that Eusebius may have been the Creator or at least Discoverer of the TF. Evidence for this conclusion (convicting Eusebius, not my Thread, of being Great) has recently been stoked in higher criticism circles by Dr. Richard Carrier:

The Testimonium Flavianum

who invokes possibly the second most foremost Eusebian critic Ken Olson and his foremost related article:

Olson A Eusebian Reading of the Testimonium Flavianum 2013

in offense of Eusebius.

While my own opinion of Eusebius (you say "Eusebias" I say Eusebs) is that he was a lying, cheatin, no-good, low-down, double-dealing, double-Crossing Monssouri scum, for those who require more than just my say-so to convict him (like evidence), I previously postured the following:

Quote:

CIRCUMSTANTIAL

1) Discovery

1 - No evidence for the TF before Eusebius

1) General silence - expectation that if the
TF existed it would have been used due to its importance
to Christianity.

2) Specific silence - http://vridar.wordpress.com/2009/03/06/josephus/

ca.140’s CE Justin Martyr

For the Cave, consider that Justin was a philosopher in
Rome and his interests were:

1) Jesus

2) 1st century Israel

3) Arguing with Pagan and Jewish philosophers

The related question should be:

Why wouldn't Justin be familiar with Josephus?

I also wonder if the Cave is even willing to concede that
extant Church Father writings prove the Fathers could
read and write. Maybe they just dictated, or maybe they
became blind or maybe they were temporarily sight-
impared while Josephus was in front of them.

ca.170’s CE Theophilus - uses Josephus

ca.180’s CE Irenaeus - uses Josephus

ca.190’s CE Clement of Alexandria - uses Josephus

ca.200’s CE Tertullian - uses Josephus

ca.200’s CE Minucius Felix - uses Josephus

ca.210’s CE Hippolytus - uses Josephus

ca.220’s CE Sextus Julius Africanus - uses Josephus

ca.230’s CE Origen - uses Josephus

ca.240’s CE Cyprian

ca.270’s CE Anatolius - uses Josephus

ca.290’s CE Arnobius

ca.300’s CE Methodius - uses Josephus

ca.300’s CE Lactantius

Of the 14 Fathers here who show no awareness of the TF
10 show use of Josephus. Comically, Roger Pearse started this
list in order to demonstrate that the Fathers in general would
have no interest in Josephus and ends up demonstrating that
the conclusion he disputes is correct.
2 - Evidence that the TF was created during the career of Eusebius

2) Familiarity - Parallels to Eusebius' own Adversus Hieroclem.

3) Language - The key phrases are generally Eusebian and not Josephan.

4) Context - The context of the TF is contrary to Josephus.

5) Manuscript - Relative uniformity of the TF post Eusebian.

6) Lack of any coherent argument for originality.

JW:
I'd like to point out in general that when there is a position that is generally thought of as being a problem for Christianity, there is no shortage of Christian Internet authors inspired by Motive & Opportunity attempting articles questioning the generally accepted problem, such as the ending of "Mark":

The End of The Word According to Gar. Was the Original Ending of "Mark" Lost?

Going the other way, Christianity generally thinks that Josephus is support for HJ so there is little Motive & Opportunity attempting articles questioning this support. Ken Olson has largely been the beneficiary of this lack of interest and his resulting articles are illustrative that the subject world is like a great big Peshutty waiting to get phoenucked.

One of his primary points in general is superior literary parallels between the TF and Eusebius than the TF and Josephus. In his latest effort he gives even more specific parallels between the TF and Eusebius to the point of simultaneously showing off/looking like he is not even trying. He goes beyond this though to demonstrating a complete parallel in context between the TF and Eusebius.

This parallel is in:

Eusebius of Caesarea: Demonstratio Evangelica. Tr. W.J. Ferrar (1920) -- Book 3

courtesy of our own Roger Pearse.

The offending verses:

Olson commentary:

Quote:

What Eusebius is seeking to show in Book III is that Jesus has not only a human nature, but a divine one as well. He goes about this by arguing that Jesus’ coming as Christ was foretold in prophecy, that he was not a deceiver but a teacher of true doctrines, that he performed superhuman feats, and that he did not perform these feats by sorcery. At the end of Book III, Eusebius concludes that a man who was not a sorcerer but a man of good character (as Porphyry himself allowed he was), yet could perform wonders beyond human ability,must necessarily have been superhuman in his nature.19
As an ostensibly outside witness to the fact that the man Jesus was not merely human in his nature but evidenced the things foretold of the Christ in prophecy, the Testimonium repre-sents an encapsulation of Eusebius’ argument. It therefore has its most plausible Sitz-im-Leben
in the pagan-Christian controversies of the fourth century. This was the period in which the question of whether Jesus was merely a wise man or
something more was being debated. The first half of the Testimonium
seems to address precisely this issue.

JW:
Olson's argument is that ALL of the points of the TF are needed for Eusebius' surrounding conceptual argument. So good candidates for the relationship explanation are either that Eusebius outright edited or at least used a questionable source for Josephus here or tailored his entire lengthy related argument to one paragraph of Josephus that everyone would agree was not originally written by Josephus. Olson prefers the former.

Joseph

ErrancyWiki

The attempt to salvage a partial TF seems entirely motivated by the desire to preswrve some non-Christian 1st century attestation to the existence of Jesus. There never was a good reason to reject 19th and early 20th century arguments against authenticity. The subject of authorship I considered unsolvable, but I do believe Olson has made a strong case.

andrewcriddle · 08-19-2013, 12:16 PM

One difficulty with a Eusebian Origin of the TF is the presence of a version of the TF in pseudo-Hegesippus writing in Latin c 375 CE probably in Rome.

It is prima-facie unlikely that the author was influenced by Eusebius and there is little internal evidence suggesting such an influence.

Andrew Criddle

noble savage · 08-19-2013, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One difficulty with a Eusebian Origin of the TF is the presence of a version of the TF in pseudo-Hegesippus writing in Latin c 375 CE probably in Rome.

It is prima-facie unlikely that the author was influenced by Eusebius and there is little internal evidence suggesting such an influence.

Andrew Criddle

A Christian author deciding to write in the genre of history and taking material from Josephus’s graphic description of the horrors of the Jewish War in order to prove the explicitly stated thesis that the misfortunes of the Jews were divine punishment for what they had done to Christ and his followers is prima facie unlikely to have been influenced by the first three books of Eusebius’s Church History which had done this fifty years earlier? What other predecessors would he have had? And why did he interrupt his main storyline about the Jewish War to tell us what Peter and Paul were doing in Rome at the same time? Regardless of what sources he might have had for the story, why place it there? Other than the influence of the second book of the Church History?

NS

yalla · 08-19-2013, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One difficulty with a Eusebian Origin of the TF is the presence of a version of the TF in pseudo-Hegesippus writing in Latin c 375 CE probably in Rome.

It is prima-facie unlikely that the author was influenced by Eusebius and there is little internal evidence suggesting such an influence.

Andrew Criddle

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavonic_Josephus

One could make the same apology for Slavonic Josephus and in fact several Christian writers have argued in the past that the references to JC within were derived from Josephus, a position that has since been refuted.
Just to give one such:
"and that recent scholarly opinion dismisses the Slavonic Josephus as less than authentic, but an 11th-century creation as an ideological struggle against the Khazars."

aa5874 · 08-19-2013, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One difficulty with a Eusebian Origin of the TF is the presence of a version of the TF in pseudo-Hegesippus writing in Latin c 375 CE probably in Rome.

It is prima-facie unlikely that the author was influenced by Eusebius and there is little internal evidence suggesting such an influence.

Andrew Criddle

A writing which is admittedly AFTER the time of Eusebius cannot show that the TF was not forged by Eusebius.

By the way, the Pseudo-Hegesippus may itself be a forgery or false attribution and is of unknown provenance.

andrewcriddle · 08-20-2013, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by noble savage

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One difficulty with a Eusebian Origin of the TF is the presence of a version of the TF in pseudo-Hegesippus writing in Latin c 375 CE probably in Rome.

It is prima-facie unlikely that the author was influenced by Eusebius and there is little internal evidence suggesting such an influence.

Andrew Criddle

A Christian author deciding to write in the genre of history and taking material from Josephus’s graphic description of the horrors of the Jewish War in order to prove the explicitly stated thesis that the misfortunes of the Jews were divine punishment for what they had done to Christ and his followers is prima facie unlikely to have been influenced by the first three books of Eusebius’s Church History which had done this fifty years earlier? What other predecessors would he have had? And why did he interrupt his main storyline about the Jewish War to tell us what Peter and Paul were doing in Rome at the same time? Regardless of what sources he might have had for the story, why place it there? Other than the influence of the second book of the Church History?

NS

pseudo-Hegesippus shows little influence from Greek works other than Josephus. There was when he wrote no Latin version of Eusebius available. As a writer writing for Christians in Rome it is prima-facie likely that he would mention Peter and Paul at the appropriate place.

Andrew Criddle

spin · 08-20-2013, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by noble savage

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

One difficulty with a Eusebian Origin of the TF is the presence of a version of the TF in pseudo-Hegesippus writing in Latin c 375 CE probably in Rome.

It is prima-facie unlikely that the author was influenced by Eusebius and there is little internal evidence suggesting such an influence.

Andrew Criddle

A Christian author deciding to write in the genre of history and taking material from Josephus’s graphic description of the horrors of the Jewish War in order to prove the explicitly stated thesis that the misfortunes of the Jews were divine punishment for what they had done to Christ and his followers is prima facie unlikely to have been influenced by the first three books of Eusebius’s Church History which had done this fifty years earlier? What other predecessors would he have had? And why did he interrupt his main storyline about the Jewish War to tell us what Peter and Paul were doing in Rome at the same time? Regardless of what sources he might have had for the story, why place it there? Other than the influence of the second book of the Church History?

NS

pseudo-Hegesippus shows little influence from Greek works other than Josephus. There was when he wrote no Latin version of Eusebius available. As a writer writing for Christians in Rome it is prima-facie likely that he would mention Peter and Paul at the appropriate place.

This argument seems to be working on the notion that the TF didn't get put into Josephus for a long time after Eusebius's hypothetical effort. You can't assume that. All the pseudo-Hegisippus writer needed was a copy of Josephus that featured the TF already inserted, which seems to be a more reasonable trajectory than the one you are invisaging.

andrewcriddle · 08-20-2013, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

pseudo-Hegesippus shows little influence from Greek works other than Josephus. There was when he wrote no Latin version of Eusebius available. As a writer writing for Christians in Rome it is prima-facie likely that he would mention Peter and Paul at the appropriate place.

This argument seems to be working on the notion that the TF didn't get put into Josephus for a long time after Eusebius's hypothetical effort. You can't assume that. All the pseudo-Hegisippus writer needed was a copy of Josephus that featured the TF already inserted, which seems to be a more reasonable trajectory than the one you are invisaging.

Assume Eusebius composed the TF shortly after 300 CE. Is it likely that a copy of Josephus used in Rome in around 375 CE would have been interpolated ?

Andrew Criddle

spin · 08-20-2013, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

pseudo-Hegesippus shows little influence from Greek works other than Josephus. There was when he wrote no Latin version of Eusebius available. As a writer writing for Christians in Rome it is prima-facie likely that he would mention Peter and Paul at the appropriate place.

This argument seems to be working on the notion that the TF didn't get put into Josephus for a long time after Eusebius's hypothetical effort. You can't assume that. All the pseudo-Hegisippus writer needed was a copy of Josephus that featured the TF already inserted, which seems to be a more reasonable trajectory than the one you are invisaging.

Assume Eusebius composed the TF shortly after 300 CE. Is it likely that a copy of Josephus used in Rome in around 375 CE would have been interpolated ?

I'm not a great one for speculating on likelihoods, but under the parameters you give there is plenty of time for a version with the squeaky new TF to get into circulation.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-19-2013, 12:16 PM	#3
andrewcriddle Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Birmingham UK Posts: 4,876	One difficulty with a Eusebian Origin of the TF is the presence of a version of the TF in pseudo-Hegesippus writing in Latin c 375 CE probably in Rome. It is prima-facie unlikely that the author was influenced by Eusebius and there is little internal evidence suggesting such an influence. Andrew Criddle

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.