Back on April 4, 2004 I wrote on the Testimonium Flavianum:

>>There is extremely little evidence that there are two different authors at
work in the Testimonium. From all appearances, it is a unified composition
by a single author. Many scholars have found that they can take the passage
as it stands, edit out the most clearly Christian content, and arrive at a
more neutral and less Christian sounding text. That is not surprising. In
my CBQ paper I show that we can do the same thing with Acts 2.22-24. But
the fact that we can take a passage that, as it stands, we can not believe
Josephus could have written and rewrite it into something that we could
believe that Josephus could have written is not proof of the authenticity of
the text<< (Crosstalk 2 Archives 15682).

I will now suggest that, before we start rewriting the Testimonium, we should
read what it says and see whose views are expressed in it. There is, I think,
an argument being made in the Testimonium, but the scholarly habit of rewriting
the text to arrive at a supposedly Josephan original has obscured what it is.
The allegedly later Christian interpolations (marked off with asterisks in the
translation below) are vital to what the text is saying and are intimately
connected with the rest of the text.

>>About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, *if indeed one should call him a
man,* for he was a maker of miraculous works, a teacher of men who revere in
truth, and he won over many of the Jewish and even many of the Greek [nation].
*He was the Christ;* and although Pilate, upon an accusation from our rulers,
condemned him to the cross, nevertheless those who had loved him earlier did not
stop, *for he appeared to them alive again on the third day, the divine prophets
having foretold these and also myriads of other wonders about him.* From that
time to this the nation of Christians has not failed.<<(This is the form of the
Testimonium from Eusebius' Demonstratio Evangelica 3.5).

The author of the TF initially suggests that Jesus may be classified as a wise
man, but then immediately questions the adequacy of the term "man" to describe
him, and offers three reasons for doing so: "for (GAR) he was [1] a maker of
miraculous works [2] a teacher of men who revere the truth and [3] he won over
many of the Jews and many of the Greek [nation]." Immediately after giving
these three facts about Jesus, the author of the TF declares: "He was the
Christ" or, more literally, "This one (hOUTOJ) was the Christ." It would seem
reasonable to suppose that the author has reached the conclusion that Jesus was
the Christ (a suitable label for Jesus), and not merely a wise man (a true but
inadequate classification for Jesus), based on the three reasons he has given.

Just a bit later in the TF, the author informs us that the divine prophets had
foretold "these things" (TAUTA, in the plural), and myriads of other wonders
about him. We may presume that "he" is the Christ and "these things" are the
things recounted of him earlier in the Testimonium. Who, we might ask, thought
that these things were foretold about the Christ in prophecy? In general, any
Christian might argue that the Christ did things that were foretold in prophecy.
But who, specifically, thought that it was foretold in prophecy that the Christ
would be (1) "a maker of miraculous works," (2) "a teacher of men," and (3) that
he would come for both the Jews and the Greeks (not just Gentiles, but
specifically "Greeks")?

(1) "a maker of miraculous works." Near the beginning of the first chapter of
the Demonstratio, Eusebius says that it was foretold in prophecy that Jesus
would work wonderful miracles, though we have to allow that the language he uses
(PARADOXOUJ QAUMATURGOIJ; DE 1.1.3) differs from that of the Testimonium. In DE
3.5 and 3.7 we find Eusebius calling Jesus a maker of miraculous works
(PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHJ) and linking that to his argument that Jesus is more
than a man, just as the author of the Testimonium suggests. Eusebius also uses
the phrase to describe Jesus twice in DE 3.5 prior to his citation of the TF.
None of these uses specifically say that it was foretold in prophecy that the
Christ would be a PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHJ. However, in the Ecclesiastical
History, Eusebius does explicitly state that Jesus acted and suffered as was
foretold in prophecy that one "both human and divine would be incarnated [more
literally, "sojourn in life"] as a maker of miraculous works [PARADOXWN ERGWN
POIHTHJ] and be revealed to all nations as a teacher [DIDASKALON] of reverence
[EUSEBEIAJ] for the Father" and identifies this being as "our Savior Jesus
Christ" (HE 1.2.23). How is it that, while Josephus never elsewhere uses the
word POIHTHJ in the sense of "maker," the author of the Testimonium and
Eusebius, seemingly alone among ancient writers, should use these three words
together and agree, not just in using them to describe Jesus, but in using them
to suggest that Jesus had a more-than-human nature and that it was foretold in
prophecy that the Christ was a "maker of miraculous works"?

(2) "a teacher of men who revere in truth." This phrase has many near-parallels
in the DE (1.1.3, 2.Proem.1, 3.6.27, 4.10.18, 5.Proem.25, 9.11.3). In two of
these the word for teacher (DIDASKALOJ) is combined with the recipients of the
teaching in the genitive (ANQRWPWN). We do not find DIDASKALOJ + ANQRWPWN
anywhere in our manuscripts of Josephus' works outside the Testimonium, yet here
we have Eusebius using this term to describe Jesus. The passage in DE 9.11.3
even agrees with the Testimonium in saying that it was foretold in prophecy that
the Christ would be a "teacher of men."

(3) "he won over many of the Jewish and even many of the Greek [nation]". At
the beginning of the second book of the Demonstratio, Eusebius promises to
refute those critics of Christianity who argue that OT prophecies about the
Christ apply to the Jews and not to the Christians, who in Eusebius' day were
nearly all Gentiles. He proposes to show from OT prophecy "that for Jews and
Greeks the hope of the promise was on an equality, so that those of the Gentiles
would be saved through Christ would be in exactly the same position as the Jews"
(Ferrar translation, p. 1.64). Eusebius, like the author of the Testimonium,
says that it was foretold in prophecy that the Christ would come for Jews and
Greeks (not just Gentiles, but specifically Greeks) equally. This opinion was
not universally held, and Eusebius devotes Book II of the Demonstratio to
defending it.


I argue that this agreement between Eusebius' thought and that of the
Testimonium calls into question whether there is any basis to divide the
Testimonium into two layers of redaction. To all appearances the language and
contents of the Testimonium come from a single mind. And that mind resembles
Eusebius' mind an awful lot.

Best Wishes,

Ken

Kenneth A. Olson
kaolson@...



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]