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

Re: [XTalk] Re: Josephus

Expand Messages
  • Jack Kilmon
    ... From: David C. Hindley To: Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 1:16 PM Subject: RE: [XTalk] Re: Josephus
    Message 1 of 24 , Oct 3, 2000
      ----- Original Message -----
      From: "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...>
      To: <crosstalk2@egroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, October 01, 2000 1:16 PM
      Subject: RE: [XTalk] Re: Josephus


      > Jack Kilmon said, in part:
      >
      > >>The fingerprints on the TF after the 3 Christian interpolations are
      > removed are in its language, style and vocabulary. The best
      > distillation of the many publications on this I have ever seen is in
      > Meier's "A Marginal Jew" Vol [1], pg 80, fn 41. I am sure you have a
      > copy of this and no need to consume bandwidth.<<
      >
      > But was not Meier's aim to contrast frequency that words from the
      > Testimonium appear in the rest of Josephus' works versus the NT? He
      > specifically downplays issues of style. He criticized J. N. Birdsall's
      > judgement of its spuriousness based on Josephan style (noting, BTW,
      > that some of its vocabulary is not to be found in early church
      > fathers *before* Eusebius, pg 83-84 n43).
      >
      > What I do not recall reading in Josephus are many of the phrases used
      > in the Testimonium, with two exceptions.
      >
      > 1) Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man

      A Christian interpolator, particularly Eusebius, would not have said "a wise
      man."

      > 2) for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as
      > receive the truth with pleasure.

      Very Josephan

      > 3) He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles.
      > 4) And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us,
      > had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did
      > not forsake him;
      > 5) And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at
      > this day.
      >
      > In #2 "men as receive the truth with pleasure" is reminiscent of Ant
      > 18.1 (7). The other is #4 "the principal men amongst us" which is
      > similar to several phrases, but particularly 20.9.1 (200) "those who
      > seemed the most equitable of the citizens."

      I think this was part of the Josephan core but I think this phrase
      was also "embellished" with "those that loved him at first did not
      forsake him."


      > Origins belief that
      > Josephus attributed the destruction of Jerusalem to James' execution
      > at the hands of Ananus can, I think, be explained as a
      > misunderstanding of a copyist's interpolation. In the margin by the
      > passage saying "Ananus ... assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and
      > brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose
      > name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and
      > when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law,
      > he delivered them to be stoned" Origin (or the author of the tradition
      > he used) found something like "this one was the reason for the
      > destruction of Jerusalem."

      To be candid, I think Origen was a nut and I don't place a lot of
      credence in anything he wrote.

      >
      > The reference would actually have been to Ananus, referring to War
      > 4.5.1 "I should not mistake if I said that the death of Ananus was the
      > beginning of the destruction of the city, and that from this very day
      > may be dated the overthrow of her wall, and the ruin of her affairs,
      > whereon they saw their high priest, and the procurer of their
      > preservation, slain in the midst of their city," but Origin understood
      > it to refer to James, and his copy may even have incorporated such a
      > gloss with that interpretation attached. Something like this could
      > also have occurred with the Testimonium.
      >
      > Phrases #1, 2, 4 & 5 come across, to me, like "pats on the back," that
      > is, self congratulation for surviving to "this day." It is a pious
      > depiction of the founder of Christianity, Jesus, calling him "a wise
      > man" and a wonder worker, in contrast to Judas the Galilean or Menahem
      > ben Judah, who were sophists (SOFISTHS), or Theudas, who was a common
      > magician (GOHS). It was of Judas and Sadduc, after all, that Josephus
      > had just earlier said "men received what they said with pleasure"

      None of the rabble rousers were healers who seem to have commanded
      a special respect in the culture of the time.


      > (18.1 ch 7). Phrase #3 is an anachronism, as the gospels do not convey
      > the idea that Jesus attracted "many of the gentiles."

      By the time Josephus wrote this, he had. Although a case could me made
      for gentile admirers during his public life, Josephus is writing this in the
      last
      decade or two of the first century. You will find such anachronisms common,
      sort of like Luke's Theudas and Abraham's "Ur of the Chaldees."


      > This looks like the work of one or more copyists to me.

      Just one, I think, but enough remains of Josephus to get a good idea of what
      he originally wrote.

      Jack


      -----
      ______________________________________________

      taybutheh d'maran yeshua masheecha am kulkon

      Jack Kilmon
      North Hollywood, Ca.
      jkilmon@...

      http://www.historian.net

      sharing a meal for free.
      http://www.thehungersite.com/
    • David C. Hindley
      Jack, I agree with you that Origen (thanx for not making an issue of my misspelling of his name in the original post - duh) was kind of a nut. Still, he
      Message 2 of 24 , Oct 3, 2000
        Jack,

        I agree with you that Origen (thanx for not making an issue of my
        misspelling of his name in the original post - duh) was kind of a nut.
        Still, he probably came up with nutty ideas from influences around him
        (reincarnation from Buddhist missionaries, etc). However, it does
        demonstrate that in his time *some* folks thought Josephus was
        claiming the death of the James of Ant 20 was the cause of the
        destruction of the temple. My suggestion that the gloss was originally
        in reference to Ananus, but misunderstood by Origen or his source of
        tradition, was an attempt to show how a new tradition could spring up
        from simple misunderstandings like a gloss.

        It makes me wonder whether the tradition about James being the
        "bulwark" of the city of Jerusalem was not directly derived from such
        an interpretation. Of course, this can be a chicken-egg argument.
        Still, the statement in Ant 20 that James was "brother of Jesus the
        so-called Christ" suggest that the writer of this particular phrase
        was not Josephus. The lack of clarifying statements here about the
        title "christ" is what bothers me. As someone else has already noted,
        Josephus otherwise does not say royal claimants claimed to be
        messiahs, but that Vespasian was actually the messiah.

        As for "for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as
        receive the truth with pleasure" of Ant 18 being a characteristic
        Josephan phrase, I'll look into that, but it will have to wait til I'm
        back from a business trip.

        Take care -- gotta head out the door.

        Dave Hindley
        Cleveland, Ohio, USA
      • Ken Olson
        ... Although this won t completely answer your question, Ken may be too modest to mention his article on the topic of theTestimonium, so I will do so: Olson,
        Message 3 of 24 , Apr 4, 2004
          On April 2, 2004, Dr. Mark S. Goodacre wrote:

          >>On 2 Apr 2004 at 4:46, Dr. Rikk E. Watts (Cantab) wrote:

          > Yes I am relying on Meier CBQ 52 (1990) (cf. Brown). Seeing you are
          > familiar with his work and the authorities he cites, I trust you don't
          > mind if I don't repeat his extensive argument. Perhaps you could tell
          > me why you reject it?

          Although this won't completely answer your question, Ken may be too
          modest to mention his article on the topic of theTestimonium, so I
          will do so:

          Olson, K. A. "Eusebius and theTestimonium Flavium." Catholic
          biblical quarterly 61/2 (1999): 305 - 322<<

          * * * * *

          Thanks for the plug, Mark. It's now been quite a while since I wrote that,
          and my thinking on the issue has progressed a great deal.

          I argued that Eusebius composed the Testimonium for his Demonstratio
          Evangelica to help answer pagan critics of Christianity. I continue to
          think that thesis is correct, but needs further clarification and
          definition. Eusebius wrote the Demonstratio as a response to pagan critics,
          most notably Porphyry and his followers among the Neoplatonists (e.g.,
          Hierocles). Porphyry argued that Christianity is an unreasonable belief.
          The Christians not only deserted the Hellenic traditions of their ancestors
          but, having adopted the scriptures of the Jews, deserted Judaism as well,
          and erroneously interpret the Jewish scriptures and the prophecies contained
          therein as referring not to the Jews but to themselves. In the
          Demonstratio, Eusebius is trying to raise Christianity to intellectual
          respectability. The main argument of the work is that Jesus and
          Christianity are indeed the subject of the Hebrew scriptures and the
          fulfillment of the prophecies in them.

          In Book III of the Demonstratio (i.e., the book in which the Testimonium is
          found), Eusebius is carrying on an extended refutation of Porphyry's
          arguments against the incarnation. Departing from other pagan critics like
          Celsus who had disparaged Jesus, Porphyry said that Jesus was one of the
          wise men of the Hebrews, but that the Christians had mistakenly taken him to
          be divine (the passage from Porphyry is quoted in Augustine, City of God,
          19.23). 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 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 had a superhuman nature.
          I think that the Testimonium is an encapsulation of Eusebius' argument and
          has its sitz-im-leben in the Pagan-Christian controversies of the fourth
          century.

          Based on further research into Eusebius' apologetics, I would modify the
          thesis I presented in the CBQ article in the following three ways:

          First, I argued that Eusebius produced the Testimonium in the context of
          refuting pagan critics who had argued that "Jesus worked no genuine miracles
          but was a wizard and deceiver who led men astray" (p. 309). I would add
          that, while it is true that Eusebius argues that Jesus worked genuine
          miracles and was not a wizard or deceiver, this is not the end of his
          argument. As I've outlined above, Eusebius argues these things on his way
          to his conclusion that Jesus had a superhuman nature. I think the
          Testimonium reflects the entire argument.

          Second, based on parallels between the Testimonium and the arguments
          Eusebius makes in the Demonstratio (which are repeated in Eusebius' later
          work, the Theophany), I argued that Eusebius wrote the Testimonium for the
          Demonstratio. However, several Eusebian scholars have argued that the
          Demonstratio, together with its companion work the Praeparatio are a
          revision and expansion of Eusebius' lost work Against Porphyry, which they
          date earlier. In particular, J. Stevenson has argued that Book III of the
          Demonstratio is taken over from Against Porphyry (Studies in Eusebius, 1929,
          p. 37), and his theory has found favor with R. M. Grant. If this theory is
          correct, and it seems plausible to me, Eusebius may have originally written
          the Testimonium for Against Porphyry.

          Third, under the influence of the "clever forger" theory (about which, more
          below), I argued that Eusebius altered his earlier version of the
          Testimonium as found in the Demonstratio by adding two combinations of words
          (PRWTWN ANDRWN in the genitive plural and DEXOMAI used with hHDONH) in
          deliberate imitation of Josephus. I no longer think it is necessary to
          postulate that Eusebius was making a particular effort to try to sound like
          Josephus. PRWTWN ANDRWN is found at least three times in Eusebius' writings
          (DE.1.10.1; Quaestiones Evangelicae ad Stephanum, PG 22, 904, 912), and in
          at least one of these cases it appears to bear the meaning "principal men"
          (see PG 22 904; the Latin translation given is "illustres viri"). And like
          other writers, Eusebius does not uniformly use the exact same words when
          discussing the same topic, but varies his language to the occasion.

          Scholars have argued for the partial authenticity of the Testimonium based
          on the "Josephan" style of the "core" text and its non-Christian content.
          Meier's effort to show that we can distinguish two different writers at work
          in the Testimonium using linguistic (as opposed to content) analysis has, in
          my opinion, at least two major flaws. First, his comparison of the
          "Josephan core" and the "Christian interpolations" does not show that the
          first is more Josephan and the second more NT. Both the supposed core *and*
          the supposed interpolations are more "Josephan" by his method (see the
          admission at the end of n. 42, p. 83, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, that the major
          argument against the interpolations is from content). Second, Meier's
          method compared the language of the Testimonium to that of the NT, which he
          presumed a Christian writer would have used. That is not a reasonable
          presumption, as I don't know of any post-NT author who confined himself to
          NT vocabulary. When we compare the language of the Testimonium to that of
          Eusebius directly, we find one combination of words which is found in
          Josephus but, as far as I've been able to tell, unparalleled in Eusebius
          (e.g., DEXOMAI + hHDONH), and several that are paralleled in Eusebius but
          not in Josephus. In the CBQ paper, I listed PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS
          ("maker of miraculous works"), EIS ETI TE NUN ("still to this day"), and
          FULON XRISTIANWN ("tribe of Christians"). We can add DIDASKALOJ ANQRWPWN
          ("teacher of men"), which Eusebius uses of Jesus at DE 3.6.27, 9.11.3.

          In regard to content, scholars at least since Thackeray have argued that the
          Testimonium contains a Josephan core with content a Christian author would
          not have used. Robert Van Voorst has compiled a list of these arguments: a
          Christian writer would not have called Jesus a "wise man," or a "maker of
          miraculous works," or used "pleasure" in a positive sense, or said that
          Jesus won over many of the Greeks/Gentiles during his ministry, or called
          the Christians a "tribe" (Jesus Outside the New Testament, pp. 89-91).

          How do these arguments fare when checked against Eusebius' writings?
          Eusebius calls Jesus a wise man (Eclogae Propheticae 3.5; PG 22, 1129); he
          repeatedly calls Jesus a "maker of miraculous works" (HE 1.2.23; DE 3.5.21,
          59, 103, 3.7.4); he praises Christians who have undergone martyrdom "with
          pleasure" (Martyrs of Palestine 6.6; In Praise of Constantine 17.11); he
          relates that Jesus attracted gentiles prior to his resurrection (DE
          8.2.108-109, HE 1.3.1; cf. Jerome's translation of Eusebius' Chronicon [PL
          27, 569] where Jesus ordains the mission to the gentiles in the year before
          his crucifixion); and he calls Christians a "tribe" (HE 3.3.3) as well as a
          nation and a race.

          A related form of the "non-Christian content" argument that scholars
          frequently make is that, if the entire Testimonium is the work of a
          Christian author, he must have been a master forger, and master forgers are
          unknown in antiquity. H. J. Thackeray is typical here:

          >>If the words are a Christian interpolation, they are an artistic forgery.
          The writer has not been content to interpose a gloss in his own language,
          but has masqueraded under the mantle of the historian and by studying his
          author has endeavoured to palm off his composition upon him. He has, as we
          saw, not shrunk from using the words "pleasure" and "tribe" in an
          un-Christian sense. He has asserted that Jesus made many converts among the
          Greeks, whereas he must have known that his master's missionary activity was
          restricted to "the house of Israel." It would be hard to parallel such a
          literary forgery (Thackeray, "Josephus," in Judaism and Christian
          Beginnings, ed. C. Myers, 1924, 222-223).

          The fact that scholars have not checked their presuppositions about what a
          Christian author might have said for counterexamples in Eusebius' writings
          should not make us hypothesize that, if Eusebius wrote the Testimonium, he
          must have been a master forger. The language of the Testmonium is, in fact,
          pretty typical of Eusebius.

          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.

          Best Wishes,

          Ken

          kaolson@...

          ----- Original Message -----
          From: "Mark Goodacre" <M.S.Goodacre@...>
          To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
          Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:59 AM
          Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Josephus


          > On 2 Apr 2004 at 4:46, Dr. Rikk E. Watts (Cantab) wrote:
          >
          > > Yes I am relying on Meier CBQ 52 (1990) (cf. Brown). Seeing you are
          > > familiar with his work and the authorities he cites, I trust you don't
          > > mind if I don't repeat his extensive argument. Perhaps you could tell
          > > me why you reject it?
          >
          > Although this won't completely answer your question, Ken may be too
          > modest to mention his article on the topic of the Testimonium, so I
          > will do so:
          >
          > Olson, K. A. "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavium." Catholic
          > biblical quarterly 61/2 (1999): 305 - 322
          >
          > Mark
          > -----------------------------
          > Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
          > Graduate Institute for Theology & Religion
          > Dept of Theology
          > University of Birmingham
          > Elmfield House, Bristol Road tel.+44 121 414 7512
          > Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376
          >
          > http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
          > http://NTGateway.com
          >
          >
          >
          >
          > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
          >
          > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
          crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
          >
          > List managers may be contacted directly at:
          crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
          >
          >
          > Yahoo! Groups Links
          >
          >
          >
          >
          >
        • Rikk Watts
          Thanks Ken, Looking forward to engaging on this in the near future... I have found your article stimulating.. Take care Rik
          Message 4 of 24 , Apr 4, 2004
            Thanks Ken,

            Looking forward to engaging on this in the near future... I have found your
            article stimulating..

            Take care
            Rik

            On 4/4/04 3:45 PM, "Ken Olson" <kaolson@...> wrote:

            > On April 2, 2004, Dr. Mark S. Goodacre wrote:
            >
            >>> On 2 Apr 2004 at 4:46, Dr. Rikk E. Watts (Cantab) wrote:
            >
            >> Yes I am relying on Meier CBQ 52 (1990) (cf. Brown). Seeing you are
            >> familiar with his work and the authorities he cites, I trust you don't
            >> mind if I don't repeat his extensive argument. Perhaps you could tell
            >> me why you reject it?
            >
            > Although this won't completely answer your question, Ken may be too
            > modest to mention his article on the topic of theTestimonium, so I
            > will do so:
            >
            > Olson, K. A. "Eusebius and theTestimonium Flavium." Catholic
            > biblical quarterly 61/2 (1999): 305 - 322<<
            >
            > * * * * *
            >
            > Thanks for the plug, Mark. It's now been quite a while since I wrote that,
            > and my thinking on the issue has progressed a great deal.
            >
            > I argued that Eusebius composed the Testimonium for his Demonstratio
            > Evangelica to help answer pagan critics of Christianity. I continue to
            > think that thesis is correct, but needs further clarification and
            > definition. Eusebius wrote the Demonstratio as a response to pagan critics,
            > most notably Porphyry and his followers among the Neoplatonists (e.g.,
            > Hierocles). Porphyry argued that Christianity is an unreasonable belief.
            > The Christians not only deserted the Hellenic traditions of their ancestors
            > but, having adopted the scriptures of the Jews, deserted Judaism as well,
            > and erroneously interpret the Jewish scriptures and the prophecies contained
            > therein as referring not to the Jews but to themselves. In the
            > Demonstratio, Eusebius is trying to raise Christianity to intellectual
            > respectability. The main argument of the work is that Jesus and
            > Christianity are indeed the subject of the Hebrew scriptures and the
            > fulfillment of the prophecies in them.
            >
            > In Book III of the Demonstratio (i.e., the book in which the Testimonium is
            > found), Eusebius is carrying on an extended refutation of Porphyry's
            > arguments against the incarnation. Departing from other pagan critics like
            > Celsus who had disparaged Jesus, Porphyry said that Jesus was one of the
            > wise men of the Hebrews, but that the Christians had mistakenly taken him to
            > be divine (the passage from Porphyry is quoted in Augustine, City of God,
            > 19.23). 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 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 had a superhuman nature.
            > I think that the Testimonium is an encapsulation of Eusebius' argument and
            > has its sitz-im-leben in the Pagan-Christian controversies of the fourth
            > century.
            >
            > Based on further research into Eusebius' apologetics, I would modify the
            > thesis I presented in the CBQ article in the following three ways:
            >
            > First, I argued that Eusebius produced the Testimonium in the context of
            > refuting pagan critics who had argued that "Jesus worked no genuine miracles
            > but was a wizard and deceiver who led men astray" (p. 309). I would add
            > that, while it is true that Eusebius argues that Jesus worked genuine
            > miracles and was not a wizard or deceiver, this is not the end of his
            > argument. As I've outlined above, Eusebius argues these things on his way
            > to his conclusion that Jesus had a superhuman nature. I think the
            > Testimonium reflects the entire argument.
            >
            > Second, based on parallels between the Testimonium and the arguments
            > Eusebius makes in the Demonstratio (which are repeated in Eusebius' later
            > work, the Theophany), I argued that Eusebius wrote the Testimonium for the
            > Demonstratio. However, several Eusebian scholars have argued that the
            > Demonstratio, together with its companion work the Praeparatio are a
            > revision and expansion of Eusebius' lost work Against Porphyry, which they
            > date earlier. In particular, J. Stevenson has argued that Book III of the
            > Demonstratio is taken over from Against Porphyry (Studies in Eusebius, 1929,
            > p. 37), and his theory has found favor with R. M. Grant. If this theory is
            > correct, and it seems plausible to me, Eusebius may have originally written
            > the Testimonium for Against Porphyry.
            >
            > Third, under the influence of the "clever forger" theory (about which, more
            > below), I argued that Eusebius altered his earlier version of the
            > Testimonium as found in the Demonstratio by adding two combinations of words
            > (PRWTWN ANDRWN in the genitive plural and DEXOMAI used with hHDONH) in
            > deliberate imitation of Josephus. I no longer think it is necessary to
            > postulate that Eusebius was making a particular effort to try to sound like
            > Josephus. PRWTWN ANDRWN is found at least three times in Eusebius' writings
            > (DE.1.10.1; Quaestiones Evangelicae ad Stephanum, PG 22, 904, 912), and in
            > at least one of these cases it appears to bear the meaning "principal men"
            > (see PG 22 904; the Latin translation given is "illustres viri"). And like
            > other writers, Eusebius does not uniformly use the exact same words when
            > discussing the same topic, but varies his language to the occasion.
            >
            > Scholars have argued for the partial authenticity of the Testimonium based
            > on the "Josephan" style of the "core" text and its non-Christian content.
            > Meier's effort to show that we can distinguish two different writers at work
            > in the Testimonium using linguistic (as opposed to content) analysis has, in
            > my opinion, at least two major flaws. First, his comparison of the
            > "Josephan core" and the "Christian interpolations" does not show that the
            > first is more Josephan and the second more NT. Both the supposed core *and*
            > the supposed interpolations are more "Josephan" by his method (see the
            > admission at the end of n. 42, p. 83, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, that the major
            > argument against the interpolations is from content). Second, Meier's
            > method compared the language of the Testimonium to that of the NT, which he
            > presumed a Christian writer would have used. That is not a reasonable
            > presumption, as I don't know of any post-NT author who confined himself to
            > NT vocabulary. When we compare the language of the Testimonium to that of
            > Eusebius directly, we find one combination of words which is found in
            > Josephus but, as far as I've been able to tell, unparalleled in Eusebius
            > (e.g., DEXOMAI + hHDONH), and several that are paralleled in Eusebius but
            > not in Josephus. In the CBQ paper, I listed PARADOXWN ERGWN POIHTHS
            > ("maker of miraculous works"), EIS ETI TE NUN ("still to this day"), and
            > FULON XRISTIANWN ("tribe of Christians"). We can add DIDASKALOJ ANQRWPWN
            > ("teacher of men"), which Eusebius uses of Jesus at DE 3.6.27, 9.11.3.
            >
            > In regard to content, scholars at least since Thackeray have argued that the
            > Testimonium contains a Josephan core with content a Christian author would
            > not have used. Robert Van Voorst has compiled a list of these arguments: a
            > Christian writer would not have called Jesus a "wise man," or a "maker of
            > miraculous works," or used "pleasure" in a positive sense, or said that
            > Jesus won over many of the Greeks/Gentiles during his ministry, or called
            > the Christians a "tribe" (Jesus Outside the New Testament, pp. 89-91).
            >
            > How do these arguments fare when checked against Eusebius' writings?
            > Eusebius calls Jesus a wise man (Eclogae Propheticae 3.5; PG 22, 1129); he
            > repeatedly calls Jesus a "maker of miraculous works" (HE 1.2.23; DE 3.5.21,
            > 59, 103, 3.7.4); he praises Christians who have undergone martyrdom "with
            > pleasure" (Martyrs of Palestine 6.6; In Praise of Constantine 17.11); he
            > relates that Jesus attracted gentiles prior to his resurrection (DE
            > 8.2.108-109, HE 1.3.1; cf. Jerome's translation of Eusebius' Chronicon [PL
            > 27, 569] where Jesus ordains the mission to the gentiles in the year before
            > his crucifixion); and he calls Christians a "tribe" (HE 3.3.3) as well as a
            > nation and a race.
            >
            > A related form of the "non-Christian content" argument that scholars
            > frequently make is that, if the entire Testimonium is the work of a
            > Christian author, he must have been a master forger, and master forgers are
            > unknown in antiquity. H. J. Thackeray is typical here:
            >
            >>> If the words are a Christian interpolation, they are an artistic forgery.
            > The writer has not been content to interpose a gloss in his own language,
            > but has masqueraded under the mantle of the historian and by studying his
            > author has endeavoured to palm off his composition upon him. He has, as we
            > saw, not shrunk from using the words "pleasure" and "tribe" in an
            > un-Christian sense. He has asserted that Jesus made many converts among the
            > Greeks, whereas he must have known that his master's missionary activity was
            > restricted to "the house of Israel." It would be hard to parallel such a
            > literary forgery (Thackeray, "Josephus," in Judaism and Christian
            > Beginnings, ed. C. Myers, 1924, 222-223).
            >
            > The fact that scholars have not checked their presuppositions about what a
            > Christian author might have said for counterexamples in Eusebius' writings
            > should not make us hypothesize that, if Eusebius wrote the Testimonium, he
            > must have been a master forger. The language of the Testmonium is, in fact,
            > pretty typical of Eusebius.
            >
            > 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.
            >
            > Best Wishes,
            >
            > Ken
            >
            > kaolson@...
            >
            > ----- Original Message -----
            > From: "Mark Goodacre" <M.S.Goodacre@...>
            > To: <crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com>
            > Sent: Friday, April 02, 2004 8:59 AM
            > Subject: Re: [XTalk] Re: Josephus
            >
            >
            >> On 2 Apr 2004 at 4:46, Dr. Rikk E. Watts (Cantab) wrote:
            >>
            >>> Yes I am relying on Meier CBQ 52 (1990) (cf. Brown). Seeing you are
            >>> familiar with his work and the authorities he cites, I trust you don't
            >>> mind if I don't repeat his extensive argument. Perhaps you could tell
            >>> me why you reject it?
            >>
            >> Although this won't completely answer your question, Ken may be too
            >> modest to mention his article on the topic of the Testimonium, so I
            >> will do so:
            >>
            >> Olson, K. A. "Eusebius and the Testimonium Flavium." Catholic
            >> biblical quarterly 61/2 (1999): 305 - 322
            >>
            >> Mark
            >> -----------------------------
            >> Dr Mark Goodacre mailto:M.S.Goodacre@...
            >> Graduate Institute for Theology & Religion
            >> Dept of Theology
            >> University of Birmingham
            >> Elmfield House, Bristol Road tel.+44 121 414 7512
            >> Birmingham B29 6LQ UK fax: +44 121 415 8376
            >>
            >> http://www.theology.bham.ac.uk/goodacre
            >> http://NTGateway.com
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >> The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
            >>
            >> To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to:
            > crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >>
            >> To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >>
            >> List managers may be contacted directly at:
            > crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
            >>
            >>
            >> Yahoo! Groups Links
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >>
            >
            >
            >
            > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
            >
            > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • Mike Grondin
            Ken- What s your take on the James passage and the apparent back- reference to the testimonium? Mike Grondin
            Message 5 of 24 , Apr 5, 2004
              Ken-

              What's your take on the James passage and the apparent back-
              reference to the testimonium?

              Mike Grondin
            • Ken Olson
              ... I think, broadly speaking, there are four positions on the passage about James in Ant. 20 and its relationship to the Testimonium: (1) It is completely
              Message 6 of 24 , Apr 5, 2004
                At 8:13 AM on April 5, 2004, Mike Grondin asked:

                > Ken-
                >
                > What's your take on the James passage and the apparent back-
                > reference to the testimonium?

                I think, broadly speaking, there are four positions on the passage about
                James in Ant. 20 and its relationship to the Testimonium:

                (1) It is completely authentic and requires an earlier passage about Jesus.

                (2) It is completely authentic and does not require an earlier passage about
                Jesus.

                (3) It is mostly authentic, but has been tampered with by Christian scribes
                (and doesn't require an earlier passage about Jesus).

                (4) It is completely inauthentic (and therefore, of course, would not
                require an earlier passage about Jesus).

                I take it that (1) is probably the majority position among HJ scholars.
                Many discussions of the issue of the authenticity of the two passages (Ant.
                18.63-64 and 20.200) start by examining the James passage, find no
                convincing reason to consider any of it inauthentic, and begin their
                examinations of the Testimonium with the presumption that there must have
                been a reference to Jesus earlier than the James passage. Meier's opinion
                would fall into this category, but a few scholars have criticized him for a
                bit of inconsistency on the point. He argues that the reference to "Jesus
                who was called Christ" requires an earlier reference to Jesus, but that in
                the earlier reference Jesus was not called Christ. Meier argues that
                Josephus did not need to explain that, or the reference to "the tribe of
                Christians, named after him" because "Josephus presupposes in Ant. 18.3.3
                that the cultured Roman reader knows that Jesus' 'second name' is Christos"
                (Marginal Jew, 1.77 n. 27) But if Josephus could presume that in Ant.
                18.63, one wonders why he could not just as well presume that they already
                knew who "Jesus, who was called Christ" in Ant. 20.200 was.

                I personally take position (4). The argument for that is lengthy and
                involves a reconstruction of the James tradition in the early church that
                presumes my views on the Testimonium. What I would like to do here is to
                reverse the usual order and begin by discussing the Testimonium, and see if
                that leads us to look at the James passage differently.

                Best Wishes,

                Ken

                kaolson@...
              • Ken Olson
                ... if ... Oops! That should be position (3), not position (4). I think the passage about James in Antiquities 20 is mostly authentic, but has been altered
                Message 7 of 24 , Apr 5, 2004
                  At 7:04 PM on April 5, 2004, Ken Olson (me) miswrote:

                  > I personally take position (4). The argument for that is lengthy and
                  > involves a reconstruction of the James tradition in the early church that
                  > presumes my views on the Testimonium. What I would like to do here is to
                  > reverse the usual order and begin by discussing the Testimonium, and see
                  if
                  > that leads us to look at the James passage differently.

                  Oops! That should be position (3), not position (4). I think the passage
                  about James in Antiquities 20 is mostly authentic, but has been altered by a
                  Christian scribe.

                  Best Wishes,

                  Ken

                  kaolson@...
                • Mike Grondin
                  Hi Ken, ... ... my follow-up question has to do with what Origen and Eusebius wrote about this passage. A couple of quotes here from Steve Mason s _Josephus
                  Message 8 of 24 , Apr 5, 2004
                    Hi Ken,

                    With respect to your favored position that:
                    > It [the passage about James in Ant. 20] is completely inauthentic

                    ... my follow-up question has to do with what Origen and Eusebius
                    wrote about this passage. A couple of quotes here from Steve Mason's
                    _Josephus and the New Testament_:

                    "... he [Origin] claims that Josephus had researched the cause of
                    the debacle and had attributed it to the Jews' execution of Jesus'
                    brother James around the year AD 62. This is a considerable
                    distortion." (ibid, p.14)

                    Distortion, yes, but the point here is that Origin was apparently
                    aware of a passage wherein Josephus wrote about the death of James.
                    And of course, if Origen was aware of such a passage, then Eusebius
                    couldn't have authored it.

                    A second piece of evidence prima facie indicating that Eusebius
                    didn't write the James passage is that he (Eusebius) quoted a
                    spurious passage about James which is consistent with Origin's
                    "distortion" and which is presumably something that he (Eusebius)
                    _would have written_ had he himself composed the James passage:

                    "Of course Josephus did not shrink from giving written testimony
                    ... as follows: 'These things happened to the Jews to avenge James
                    the Just, who was the brother of Jesus'."
                    (Eccl hist 2.23.20, quoted in JATNT, p.16)

                    As I'm sure you've given these matters some thought, do you mind
                    briefly discussing this apparently contrary evidence?

                    Thanks,
                    Mike Grondin
                    Mt. Clemens, MI
                  • Larry Swain
                    Apologies if this has been covered, but has anyone covered in print the possible, and to my mind probable, interplay of Hegessipus bit of hagiography on James
                    Message 9 of 24 , Apr 6, 2004
                      Apologies if this has been covered, but has anyone covered in print the possible, and to my mind probable, interplay of Hegessipus' bit of hagiography on James and the Josephan text?

                      Larry Swain

                      <BR><BR>----- Original Message -----<BR>From: "Mike Grondin" <mwgrondin@...><BR>Date: Tue, 06 Apr 2004 02:58:45 -0000<BR>To: crosstalk2@yahoogroups.com<BR>Subject: [XTalk] Re: Josephus<BR><BR><html><body>


                      <tt>
                      Hi Ken,<BR>
                      <BR>
                      With respect to your favored position that:<BR>
                      > It [the passage about James in Ant. 20] is completely inauthentic<BR>
                      <BR>
                      ... my follow-up question has to do with what Origen and Eusebius <BR>
                      wrote about this passage. A couple of quotes here from Steve Mason's <BR>
                      _Josephus and the New Testament_:<BR>
                      <BR>
                      "... he [Origin] claims that Josephus had researched the cause of <BR>
                      the debacle and had attributed it to the Jews' execution of Jesus' <BR>
                      brother James around the year AD 62. This is a considerable <BR>
                      distortion." (ibid, p.14)<BR>
                      <BR>
                      Distortion, yes, but the point here is that Origin was apparently <BR>
                      aware of a passage wherein Josephus wrote about the death of James. <BR>
                      And of course, if Origen was aware of such a passage, then Eusebius <BR>
                      couldn't have authored it. <BR>
                      <BR>
                      A second piece of evidence prima facie indicating that Eusebius <BR>
                      didn't write the James passage is that he (Eusebius) quoted a <BR>
                      spurious passage about James which is consistent with Origin's <BR>
                      "distortion" and which is presumably something that he (Eusebius) <BR>
                      _would have written_ had he himself composed the James passage:<BR>
                      <BR>
                      "Of course Josephus did not shrink from giving written testimony <BR>
                      ... as follows: 'These things happened to the Jews to avenge James <BR>
                      the Just, who was the brother of Jesus'."<BR>
                      (Eccl hist 2.23.20, quoted in JATNT, p.16)<BR>
                      <BR>
                      As I'm sure you've given these matters some thought, do you mind <BR>
                      briefly discussing this apparently contrary evidence?<BR>
                      <BR>
                      Thanks,<BR>
                      Mike Grondin<BR>
                      Mt. Clemens, MI<BR>
                      <BR>
                      </tt>

                      <br><br>
                      <tt>
                      The XTalk Home Page is <a href="http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/">http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/</a><BR>
                      <BR>
                      To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                      <BR>
                      To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                      <BR>
                      List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com<BR>
                      <BR>
                      </tt>
                      <br><br>



                      <!-- |**|begin egp html banner|**| -->

                      <br>
                      <tt><hr width="500">
                      <b>Yahoo! Groups Links</b><br>
                      <ul>
                      <li>To visit your group on the web, go to:<br><a href="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/</a><br> 
                      <li>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:<br><a href="mailto:crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com</a><br> 
                      <li>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the <a href="http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service</a>.
                      </ul>
                      </tt>
                      </br>

                      <!-- |**|end egp html banner|**| -->


                      </body></html>


                      --
                      _____________________________________________________________
                      Web-based SMS services available at http://www.operamail.com
                      From your mailbox to local or overseas cell phones.

                      Powered by Outblaze
                    • Ken Olson
                      ... possible, and to my mind probable, interplay of Hegessipus bit of hagiography on James and the Josephan text?
                      Message 10 of 24 , Apr 7, 2004
                        At 5:10 PM on Tuesday, April 6, 2004, Larry Swain asked:

                        > Apologies if this has been covered, but has anyone covered in print the
                        possible, and to my mind probable, interplay of Hegessipus' bit of
                        hagiography on James and the Josephan text?<

                        So far as I know, no one has devoted a lengthy discussion to it. I've
                        discussed this on Crosstalk before, most recently here, in response to James
                        Hannam: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/crosstalk2/message/13313 (5/21/03). I
                        quote a few of the scholars who have mentioned the issue of how Origen's
                        testimony about what "Josephus" said relates to the passage in Hegesippus.
                        (Mike Grondin and I have had a brief offlist exchange on this).

                        Some scholars have suggested that Hegesippus is at least partly dependent on
                        Josephus for the story, and also that Clement, Origen, and Eusebius are
                        dependent on Hegesippus (F. Stanley Jones thinks all the later Xian accounts
                        are dependent on Hegesippus (SBL 1990 Seminar Papers, 1990, 322-335; Richard
                        Bauckham tries to reconstruct sources behind Hegesippus, Clement, and the
                        two Apocalypses of James from Nag Hammadi in "For What Offense Was James Put
                        to Death?," in James the Just and Christian Origins, ed. B. Chilton and C.
                        A. Evans, 1999, 200-232.

                        Best Wishes,

                        Ken

                        kaolson@...
                      • Rikk Watts
                        It s been a long break in the thread, but I ve just enjoyed reading Paget s very informative article in JTS 52 (2001) 539-624. He engages with Ken. Regards
                        Message 11 of 24 , May 15, 2004
                          It's been a long break in the thread, but I've just enjoyed reading Paget's
                          very informative article in JTS 52 (2001) 539-624. He engages with Ken.

                          Regards
                          Rikk


                          On 5/4/04 7:58 PM, "Mike Grondin" <mwgrondin@...> wrote:

                          > Hi Ken,
                          >
                          > With respect to your favored position that:
                          >> It [the passage about James in Ant. 20] is completely inauthentic
                          >
                          > ... my follow-up question has to do with what Origen and Eusebius
                          > wrote about this passage. A couple of quotes here from Steve Mason's
                          > _Josephus and the New Testament_:
                          >
                          > "... he [Origin] claims that Josephus had researched the cause of
                          > the debacle and had attributed it to the Jews' execution of Jesus'
                          > brother James around the year AD 62. This is a considerable
                          > distortion." (ibid, p.14)
                          >
                          > Distortion, yes, but the point here is that Origin was apparently
                          > aware of a passage wherein Josephus wrote about the death of James.
                          > And of course, if Origen was aware of such a passage, then Eusebius
                          > couldn't have authored it.
                          >
                          > A second piece of evidence prima facie indicating that Eusebius
                          > didn't write the James passage is that he (Eusebius) quoted a
                          > spurious passage about James which is consistent with Origin's
                          > "distortion" and which is presumably something that he (Eusebius)
                          > _would have written_ had he himself composed the James passage:
                          >
                          > "Of course Josephus did not shrink from giving written testimony
                          > ... as follows: 'These things happened to the Jews to avenge James
                          > the Just, who was the brother of Jesus'."
                          > (Eccl hist 2.23.20, quoted in JATNT, p.16)
                          >
                          > As I'm sure you've given these matters some thought, do you mind
                          > briefly discussing this apparently contrary evidence?
                          >
                          > Thanks,
                          > Mike Grondin
                          > Mt. Clemens, MI
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                          >
                          > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                          >
                          >
                          > Yahoo! Groups Links
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                          >
                        • David C. Hindley
                          Rikk, ... Paget s very informative article in JTS 52 (2001) 539-624. He engages with Ken.
                          Message 12 of 24 , May 15, 2004
                            Rikk,

                            >>It's been a long break in the thread, but I've just enjoyed reading
                            Paget's very informative article in JTS 52 (2001) 539-624. He engages with
                            Ken.<<

                            This must have been a private correspondence between Mike G and Ken O to
                            which you were copied, as I cannot find any sign of it in my archives.

                            I think you meant JTS Volume 52, Issue 2: October 2001, "Some Observations
                            on Josephus and Christianity" by James Carleton Paget. Unfortunately, it is
                            not online, and I am not in a position to visit the library at this time.
                            Bummer. Could you provide a summary of what he said as it relates to
                            possible Eusebian fabrication of the testimonium and/or the James statement
                            on Ant 20?

                            Mike is probably correct, though, that the evidence points to a passage or
                            passages known to both Origen and Eusebius as more likely the source of
                            Origen's statement than an Eusebian fabrication. Both of them appear to have
                            either believed (Origen) or accepted as authoritative (Eusebius) the "fact"
                            that this/these passages were authored by Josephus.

                            My opinion is that Origen had read some account (or an epitome of an
                            account) that had attempted to show figures from Christian tradition in a
                            plausible historical context using extracts from Josephus' works. Possible
                            writer: Hegesippus. If it circulated anonymously, he may have thought he was
                            reading from a work by Josephus, or was unable or unwilling to distinguish
                            the opinions of the author who used Josephus from the Josephian material
                            itself. Josephus wrote at least 25 volumes of history plus his own
                            biography, and Origen may either not have had access to all of them, or did
                            not devote serious time into the task of checking his sources if he did, or
                            better yet thought the account came from an original work of Josephus.

                            Respectfully,

                            Dave Hindley
                            Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                          • Rikk Watts
                            Hi David, Depends what you mean by summary ‹ this is a very long and intricately argued article (verging on being a small book ‹ nearly 80 pps). It would
                            Message 13 of 24 , May 15, 2004
                              Hi David,

                              Depends what you mean by summary ‹ this is a very long and intricately
                              argued article (verging on being a small book ‹ nearly 80 pps). It would
                              take more time than I have at the moment to go into his argument in any
                              detail.

                              In general... he argues for the authenticity of the James ref and, after
                              laying out the complexity of the issues involved and thus why any definitive
                              conclusion on the TF is impossible, he rejects the thorough-going forgery
                              option (he is critical of Ken O's case for Eusebian origin both in terms of
                              style and motivation, and that of supposed contextual incongruity), and is
                              in favor of retaining the passage in an amended form reflecting a more
                              neutral, detached, and perhaps even slightly skeptical original.
                              Unfortunately, I couldn't see where he gives his version of the text.

                              I can't imagine that this helps much. Prob the best bet is to get a
                              photocopy re interlibrary loan.

                              Regards,

                              Rikk


                              On 15/5/04 8:48 AM, "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...> wrote:

                              > Rikk,
                              >
                              >>> It's been a long break in the thread, but I've just enjoyed reading
                              > Paget's very informative article in JTS 52 (2001) 539-624. He engages with
                              > Ken.<<
                              >
                              > This must have been a private correspondence between Mike G and Ken O to
                              > which you were copied, as I cannot find any sign of it in my archives.
                              >
                              > I think you meant JTS Volume 52, Issue 2: October 2001, "Some Observations
                              > on Josephus and Christianity" by James Carleton Paget. Unfortunately, it is
                              > not online, and I am not in a position to visit the library at this time.
                              > Bummer. Could you provide a summary of what he said as it relates to
                              > possible Eusebian fabrication of the testimonium and/or the James statement
                              > on Ant 20?
                              >
                              > Mike is probably correct, though, that the evidence points to a passage or
                              > passages known to both Origen and Eusebius as more likely the source of
                              > Origen's statement than an Eusebian fabrication. Both of them appear to have
                              > either believed (Origen) or accepted as authoritative (Eusebius) the "fact"
                              > that this/these passages were authored by Josephus.
                              >
                              > My opinion is that Origen had read some account (or an epitome of an
                              > account) that had attempted to show figures from Christian tradition in a
                              > plausible historical context using extracts from Josephus' works. Possible
                              > writer: Hegesippus. If it circulated anonymously, he may have thought he was
                              > reading from a work by Josephus, or was unable or unwilling to distinguish
                              > the opinions of the author who used Josephus from the Josephian material
                              > itself. Josephus wrote at least 25 volumes of history plus his own
                              > biography, and Origen may either not have had access to all of them, or did
                              > not devote serious time into the task of checking his sources if he did, or
                              > better yet thought the account came from an original work of Josephus.
                              >
                              > Respectfully,
                              >
                              > Dave Hindley
                              > Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                              >
                              > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                              >
                              >
                              > Yahoo! Groups Links
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                              >
                            • David C. Hindley
                              Slight correction(s): Ken O. advised that I was incorrect to imply that his position was that the passage about James in Ant 20 was an Eusebian fabrication.
                              Message 14 of 24 , May 15, 2004
                                Slight correction(s):

                                Ken O. advised that I was incorrect to imply that his position was that the
                                passage about James in Ant 20 was "an Eusebian fabrication."

                                Ken clarified that he thinks "Eusebius identified the man executed in Ant.
                                20.200 with these words because he identified that man with the man Origen
                                was talking about and that he glossed the text that way in his quotation of
                                it in the HE. I think a well-meaning Xian scribe then "corrected" his text
                                of the Ant. to the reading he found in Eusebius. I do NOT think Eusebius
                                fabricated the entire James passage."

                                My apologies to Ken for misrepresenting his position. I may have been
                                thinking of the testimonium as Ken does think that that particular pericope,
                                at least in its present form, was authored by Eusebius. Ken does not want to
                                James question to overshadow the idea that Eusebius authored the testimonium
                                in whole or part.

                                The subject of the James passage on Ant 20 comes up about once or twice a
                                year, generates more heat than light, and my memory is also not what it used
                                to be.

                                Respectfully,

                                Dave Hindley
                                Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                              • Rikk Watts
                                Thanks... (to Dave and Ken). Am I right though in understanding Ken to think that the TF was a Eusebian fabrication? BTW Paget is not convinced by Ken O s
                                Message 15 of 24 , May 15, 2004
                                  Thanks... (to Dave and Ken). Am I right though in understanding Ken to think
                                  that the TF was a Eusebian fabrication?

                                  BTW Paget is not convinced by Ken O's argument that the James connection is
                                  a Eusebian one: a) even if there are a number of elaborations in the various
                                  accounts, how many James' were likely to have been stoned in Jerusalem? b)
                                  the discrepancies in dating are more likely due to Hegesippus' desire
                                  theologically to connect the siege and James' death than a concern for
                                  historical accuracy, c) even if "Christ" did not appear in the TF (which P
                                  thinks most unlikely) the reference here need not be regarded as a "sudden
                                  introduction" since the references in Suetonius and Tacitus imply that
                                  Christ had already become a name for Jesus, and d) the description of James
                                  as the brother of Jesus tou legomenou xristou "seems an unlikely Christian
                                  interpolation." I.e. when Eusebius distorts Jos it is (according to P)
                                  always with a specifically Christian tendency. He can see no evidence of
                                  that tendency wrt the passage about James ‹ why is the interpolation not of
                                  a more "brazenly Christian kind" (as per Origen, whom he then discusses)?

                                  Again, this is a long and intricate piece, be much better I think if you
                                  could somehow get a look at it.

                                  Regards
                                  Rikk



                                  On 15/5/04 3:03 PM, "David C. Hindley" <dhindley@...> wrote:

                                  > Slight correction(s):
                                  >
                                  > Ken O. advised that I was incorrect to imply that his position was that the
                                  > passage about James in Ant 20 was "an Eusebian fabrication."
                                  >
                                  > Ken clarified that he thinks "Eusebius identified the man executed in Ant.
                                  > 20.200 with these words because he identified that man with the man Origen
                                  > was talking about and that he glossed the text that way in his quotation of
                                  > it in the HE. I think a well-meaning Xian scribe then "corrected" his text
                                  > of the Ant. to the reading he found in Eusebius. I do NOT think Eusebius
                                  > fabricated the entire James passage."
                                  >
                                  > My apologies to Ken for misrepresenting his position. I may have been
                                  > thinking of the testimonium as Ken does think that that particular pericope,
                                  > at least in its present form, was authored by Eusebius. Ken does not want to
                                  > James question to overshadow the idea that Eusebius authored the testimonium
                                  > in whole or part.
                                  >
                                  > The subject of the James passage on Ant 20 comes up about once or twice a
                                  > year, generates more heat than light, and my memory is also not what it used
                                  > to be.
                                  >
                                  > Respectfully,
                                  >
                                  > Dave Hindley
                                  > Cleveland, Ohio, USA
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > The XTalk Home Page is http://ntgateway.com/xtalk/
                                  >
                                  > To subscribe to Xtalk, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  >
                                  > To unsubscribe, send an e-mail to: crosstalk2-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
                                  >
                                  > List managers may be contacted directly at: crosstalk2-owners@yahoogroups.com
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Yahoo! Groups Links
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                • Ken Olson
                                  At 2:19 PM on May 15, Rikk Watts wrote [in reference to James Carleton Paget ... after laying out the complexity of the issues involved and thus why any
                                  Message 16 of 24 , May 22, 2004
                                    At 2:19 PM on May 15, Rikk Watts wrote [in reference to James Carleton Paget
                                    's "Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity," JTS 52 (2001) 539-624]:

                                    >>In general... he [Paget] argues for the authenticity of the James ref and,
                                    after
                                    laying out the complexity of the issues involved and thus why any definitive
                                    conclusion on the TF is impossible, he rejects the thorough-going forgery
                                    option (he is critical of Ken O's case for Eusebian origin both in terms of
                                    style and motivation, and that of supposed contextual incongruity), and is
                                    in favor of retaining the passage in an amended form reflecting a more
                                    neutral, detached, and perhaps even slightly skeptical original.
                                    Unfortunately, I couldn't see where he gives his version of the text.<<

                                    Here's what Paget had to say about my argument that Eusebius composed the
                                    Testimonium to further the argument he was making in the Demonstratio. (For
                                    the moment, I will leave aside Paget's other arguments regarding style,
                                    external witnesses, and the James passage):

                                    >>Olson notes that the earliest citation of the TF appears in Eusebius'
                                    Demonstratio, in the context of a defence of Jesus as a genuine miracle
                                    worker against the charge that he was a wizard and deceiver (3.5.102 f.).
                                    With this context in mind, he argues that much of the TF can be seen as
                                    created to refute precisely this accusation. In this vein he places
                                    particular emphasis on the references in the TF to Jesus as a wise man, to
                                    the reception of his true message with pleasure, and to the stalwart
                                    persistence of the disciples' belief in him after his death. But Olson's
                                    observations in this regard are not powerful. While it is true that
                                    Eusebius' citation of the TF occurs in the context of an attempt to argue
                                    for the genuineness of Jesus' miracles, it is notable that what he chooses
                                    to emphasize from the TF are not the phrases which Olson seems to put so
                                    much store by. Rather Eusebius picks up on the TF's statement that Jesus
                                    attracted to himself many Jews and many Greeks to prove that 'he must
                                    evidently have had some extraordinary power beyond that of men.' In fact
                                    Eusebius appears to realize that such an assertion about Jesus is
                                    problematical, not least because it points to a reality which did not
                                    pertain either at the time Eusebius was writing or in Jesus' ministry. Hence
                                    he seeks to support the assertion by reference to the Acts of the Apostles
                                    and what was known about Christianity up to the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba
                                    revolt. Moreover, although the passage appears in an almost identical
                                    context in the Theophania and the Demonstratio, the same words are
                                    emphasized. If Eusebius was the forger of the TF why would he have chosen
                                    not to emphasize those parts of the passage which Olson highlights as
                                    central to his concerns, emphasizing instead a part of the TF which appeared
                                    historically problematic?<< (562).

                                    *KO:
                                    I expect I will be responding to Paget in print at some point in the future,
                                    but I will offer three criticisms of his argument here.

                                    The FIRST has to do with Paget's representation of what I said. I question
                                    the criteria Paget used to determine which parts of the Testimonium I gave
                                    'particular emphasis' or 'highlighted'. Two of the three things that Paget
                                    claims that I highlight as central to Eusebius' concerns (receiving with
                                    pleasure and continuing disciples) received relatively little attention in
                                    my paper, being mentioned only briefly, once each, in my line-by-line
                                    commentary on the text. I do think they agree with what Eusebius has said
                                    elsewhere in the Demonstratio, and Paget does not dispute that. I did not,
                                    however, say that they were his central aims in writing the Testimonium, nor
                                    did I place 'particular emphasis' on them any more than I did on any other
                                    part of the Testimonium. The first of these points received two sentences in
                                    my paper; the second one sentence. It appears to me that Paget has chosen
                                    to highlight these two points as particularly important to me so that he
                                    could then argue that they were not particularly important to Eusebius. To
                                    clarify my position, I outlined what I do think is central to Eusebius in an
                                    earlier post in this thread (on 4/4/4).

                                    SECOND, but more importantly, while Paget finds some of the contents of the
                                    TF to be historically problematic, he does not explicitly define the nature
                                    of the problem he perceives to be there nor how he thinks Eusebius' response
                                    solves it. This makes his criticism a bit difficult to answer. I take it
                                    that Paget is suggesting that Jesus had:
                                    A) No Greek followers during his ministry and
                                    B) Darn few Jewish followers at the time of Eusebius.
                                    Both these points may be historically true, and it may be that the TF is
                                    historically problematic, but what is a problem for modern historians is not
                                    necessarily a problem for Eusebius.

                                    On point A, whatever modern historians might think, it is clear that
                                    Eusebius thought that Jesus did attract Gentiles/Greeks during his ministry
                                    (HE 1.13.1; DE 8.2.108). This point I will deal with more fully in my third
                                    criticism below.

                                    Point B was, indeed, a problem for Eusebius. According to Eusebius, both
                                    Jewish and Greek critics (Eusebius almost certainly has Porphyry in mind
                                    here) had criticized Christianity for taking over the Hebrew scriptures
                                    without following Jewish law. The critics of Christianity claimed that OT
                                    prophecy foretold that the Christ would come for the Jews, not for the
                                    Gentiles. As Jesus' followers were Gentiles, the prophecies about the
                                    Christ did not apply to Jesus or to them. Book II of the Demonstratio is
                                    devoted to answering this point.

                                    Here is the passage that immediately follows the TF in Eusebius'
                                    Demonstratio:

                                    >>If, then, even the historian's evidence shews that He attracted to Himself
                                    not only the twelve Apostles, nor the seventy disciples, but had in addition
                                    many Jews and Greeks, He must evidently have had some extraordinary power
                                    beyond that of other men. For how otherwise could He have attracted many
                                    Jews and Greeks, except by wonderful miracles and unheard-of teaching?<< (DE
                                    3.5, trans. W. Ferrar, 1.143).

                                    Paget's claim that Eusebius emphasizes a point that is problematic for him
                                    seems to be self-contradictory. If Eusebius knows that this part of the
                                    Testimonium is mistaken or "problematic" why *does* he emphasize it? Why
                                    doesn't he correct the statement in the Testimonium if he thinks it's wrong?
                                    Eusebius is quite willing to correct Josephus when he thinks Josephus is
                                    mistaken, as when Josephus suggests that Vespasian was the ruler awaited by
                                    the Jews (HE 3.8.10-11), yet here Eusebius picks out this particular part of
                                    the Testimonium to repeat and emphasize three times without apparent
                                    qualification in the paragraph following the Testimonium. This would seem
                                    to indicate agreement, not disagreement. What evidence is there that
                                    Eusebius, as opposed to Paget, considered this part of the Testimonium
                                    mistaken or problematic? Contra Paget, I don't see any indication here that
                                    Eusebius finds the statement in the Testimonium awkward or in need of
                                    qualification. Eusebius emphasizes the statement because it agrees
                                    precisely with his views, and I do not think this is a coincidence.

                                    Paget is also unclear about exactly what he considers to be Eusebius'
                                    purpose in citing "the Acts of the Apostles and what was known about
                                    Christianity up to the outbreak of the Bar Kokhba revolt." Here is the
                                    passage that Paget thinks shows that Eusebius found the TF's statement about
                                    Jesus winning over Jews and Greeks to be problematic:

                                    >>And the evidence of the Acts of the Apostles goes to shew that there were
                                    many myriads of *Jews* who believed Him to be the Christ of God foretold by
                                    the prophets. And history also assures us that there was a very important
                                    Christian Church in Jerusalem, composed of *Jews*, which existed until the
                                    siege of the city under Hadrian. The bishops, too, who stand first in line
                                    of succession there are said to have been *Jews*, whose names are still
                                    [EISETI NUN] remembered by the inhabitants<< (DE 3.5, trans. W. Ferrar,
                                    1.143).

                                    Eusebius lists three facts here. Not one of them concerns either Gentiles
                                    or the period of Jesus' ministry. He does not appear to be addressing the
                                    issue of Gentile Christianity at all in this passage. If we examine what
                                    Eusebius actually says, it is quite clear that his purpose is to show that
                                    there were *Jews* in the church *after* Jesus' death. This is important to
                                    Eusebius' because of his position on OT prophecy. Eusebius spent Book II
                                    arguing against those who said that the Christ was promised to the Jews, not
                                    to the Gentile Christians. Eusebius' counter-argument was that the promise
                                    applied only to *some* of the Jews, by which he meant the Jews who became
                                    Christians. Now, if there were no Jews in the early church, the prophecy
                                    would not be fulfilled and it is of utmost importance to Eusebius in the
                                    Demonstratio to show that all relevant prophecies be fulfilled. The Jews
                                    mentioned here as being in the early church are the Jews who fulfill the
                                    prophecy. It is important to Eusebius' understanding of prophecy that they
                                    be there. While Eusebius does not make this point explicitly in the
                                    Demonstratio at the time he cites these three facts, we can still see that
                                    that was what he intended. He uses the same three facts to show that these
                                    Jews fulfill Jesus' prophecy and that of the OT in Theophania 4.24
                                    (hyperlink here; thanks are due to Roger Pearse for putting the text
                                    online).

                                    THIRD, Paget missed the passages in Eusebius' writings that show that
                                    Eusebius did indeed think that Jesus ministry was conducted to both Jews and
                                    Greeks and that Jesus attracted Gentile followers during his ministry. One
                                    of these was cited in my paper:

                                    >>The divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ became famous among all men because
                                    of his wonder-working power, and led to him myriads even of those who in
                                    foreign lands were far remote from Judea, in the hope of healing from
                                    diseases and from all kinds of suffering<< (HE 13.13.1; trans. Kirsopp Lake,
                                    LCL).

                                    To this I would add another passage from the Demonstratio, which makes it
                                    clear that Eusebius thought that Jesus' ministry was to Jews and Greek
                                    equally:

                                    >>Now the whole period of our Saviour's Teaching and working of Miracles is
                                    said to have been three-and-a-half years, which is half a week. John the
                                    Evangelist, in his Gospel, makes this clear to the attentive. One week of
                                    years therefore would be represented by the whole period of His association
                                    with the Apostles, both the time before His Passion, and the time after His
                                    Resurrection. For it is written that *before His Passion* He shewed Himself
                                    for the space of three-and-a-half years to His disciples and also to those
                                    who were not His disciples: while *by teaching and miracles He revealed the
                                    powers of His Godhead to all equally whether Greeks or Jews*. But after His
                                    Resurrection He was most likely with His disciples a period equal |136 to
                                    the years, being seen of them forty days, and eating with them, and speaking
                                    of the things pertaining to the Kingdom of God, as the Acts of the Apostles
                                    tells us<< (DE 8.2/400, trans. W. Ferrar, 2.135-136, online here thanks to
                                    Roger Pearse).

                                    Note especially that Eusebius places Jesus' teaching and miracle-working to
                                    both Greeks and Jews among the events that took place before Jesus' Passion
                                    rather than after his Resurrection.

                                    To sum up, I do not think Paget's criticism of my argument do much to
                                    counter the theory that Eusebius composed the Testimonium, but I do see I
                                    will have to explain what I think Eusebius' purposes were in composing it
                                    more fully and clearly than I did in my CBQ paper.

                                    Best Wishes,

                                    Ken

                                    kaolson@...
                                  Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.