Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Marian Hillar on the Testimonium Flavianum

Expand Messages
  • Ken Olson
    Those of you who are not tired of hearing about the Testimonium Flavianum might be interested in Marian Hillar s essay on it, available in pdf form at:
    Message 1 of 3 , Jan 23, 2005
      Those of you who are not tired of hearing about the Testimonium Flavianum might be interested in Marian Hillar's essay on it, available in pdf form at:

      http://www.socinian.org/files/TestimoniumFlavianum.pdf

      or you can just google "Hillar" and "Testimonium" to get either the pdf or html versions.

      Basically, Hillar argues that the Testimonium is completely inauthentic and that the identification of James as "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ" in Ant. 20.200 is a later gloss inserted to identify the James found in Josephus with the James of Christian tradition. I am in general agreement with Hillar on those points, but differ from him on several others, especially those having to do with the chronology and genealogy of the witnesses.

      Best Wishes,

      Ken

      Kenneth A. Olson
      MA, History, University of Maryland
      PhD Student, Theology, University of Birmingham



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • ehub035
      [from Geoff Riggs; not Liz H., my better half] ... Flavianum might be interested in Marian Hillar s essay on it, available ... pdf or html versions. ...
      Message 2 of 3 , Oct 31, 2011
        [from Geoff Riggs; not Liz H., my better half]

        --- In crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Olson" <kenolson101@...> wrote:
        >
        > Those of you who are not tired of hearing about the Testimonium
        Flavianum might be interested in Marian Hillar's essay on it, available
        in pdf form at:
        >
        > http://www.socinian.org/files/TestimoniumFlavianum.pdf
        >
        > or you can just google "Hillar" and "Testimonium" to get either the
        pdf or html versions.
        >
        > Basically, Hillar argues that the Testimonium is completely
        inauthentic and that the identification of James as "the brother of
        Jesus who was called Christ" in Ant. 20.200 is a later gloss inserted to
        identify the James found in Josephus with the James of Christian
        tradition. I am in general agreement with Hillar on those points

        =========================

        [G.R.] Although I have seen some cogency in some of the arguments
        questioning certain phrases in the TF, I still have trouble seeing the
        logic in any argument advanced against the reference to James in
        Ant.20.200. Unlike the TF, we have direct citations of this Josephan
        reference to James as early as Origen, well before any Christian scribe
        would be very likely to interpolate this James reference in a Josephus
        text. Moreover, the more entrenched Christian tradition became, the
        higher the discomfort in associating any member of Jesus's family with a
        sibling relationship to Jesus, due to developing beliefs around Jesus's
        mother Mary. Considerations like these point to a perspective very much
        like Josephus being behind Ant.20.200 and not a later Christianized one.

        For all these reasons -- and having now read the Hillar essay cited
        above -- I remain unconvinced as to the proposed inauthenticity of the
        wording in Ant.20.200. If there are any arguments for its
        inauthenticity in addition to those cited in the Hillar URL, I'd be
        interested in seeing them. But so far, I see such arguments as having
        certain distinct flaws.

        With respect,

        Geoffrey Riggs
      • David Mealand
        Hm. The discussion gives a lot of attention to the treatment and use of Josephus in the time from his writing to a much later period. It tends to focus mainly
        Message 3 of 3 , Nov 1, 2011
          Hm. The discussion gives a lot of attention to the
          treatment and use of Josephus in the time from his
          writing to a much later period.

          It tends to focus mainly on the content and themes
          in the disputed passage, and in the related passages
          in Josephus, and the way these motifs are used in
          later writers, which is fair enough.

          What it does not do is look at the stylistic evidence.
          The TF is either interpolated or completely spurious
          but which? By taking successive short phrases of a
          few words at a time one can see which of these phrases
          uses a linguistic pattern which reappears a) in the
          rest of the extensive works of Josephus b) in an even
          larger quantity of early Christian texts.

          The result is that the phrases which are unproblematic
          in their content in the TF do reappear elsewhere in
          Josephus, and those which are more suspect do not.
          Also the first set of these phrases do not appear
          in the very large quantity of early Christian texts
          available in digital form since the early TLG disc came out.

          Eusebius does elsewhere use some of the phrases in question.
          But then Eusebius cites the TF. So it is possible that
          E repeated elsewhere phrases from an already interpolated
          TF. (Or, if you think E was in the habit of
          falsifying other quotations then one might suspect
          him of being the interpolator).

          The main drawback with the stylistic method tried, is that
          it is checking extremely short passages from the TF against
          a very large quantity of other text a) in Josephus and
          b) elsewhere. This is not a normal stylometric procedure
          and it would need rather smarter statistical methods than
          are usually used in stylometry to knock it into shape and
          test it properly. Also I think changes to the TLG might make
          it hard to re-test some of this - the earlier systems for
          stylistic work on the TLG may have been more flexible.

          David M.



          ---------
          David Mealand, University of Edinburgh


          --
          The University of Edinburgh is a charitable body, registered in
          Scotland, with registration number SC005336.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.