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

RE: [XTalk] Re: Josephus

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 of 24 , Oct 3, 2000
    • 0 Attachment
      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 2 of 24 , Apr 4, 2004
      • 0 Attachment
        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 3 of 24 , Apr 4, 2004
        • 0 Attachment
          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 4 of 24 , Apr 5, 2004
          • 0 Attachment
            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 5 of 24 , Apr 5, 2004
            • 0 Attachment
              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 6 of 24 , Apr 5, 2004
              • 0 Attachment
                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 7 of 24 , Apr 5, 2004
                • 0 Attachment
                  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 8 of 24 , Apr 6, 2004
                  • 0 Attachment
                    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 9 of 24 , Apr 7, 2004
                    • 0 Attachment
                      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 10 of 24 , May 15, 2004
                      • 0 Attachment
                        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 11 of 24 , May 15, 2004
                        • 0 Attachment
                          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 12 of 24 , May 15, 2004
                          • 0 Attachment
                            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 13 of 24 , May 15, 2004
                            • 0 Attachment
                              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 14 of 24 , May 15, 2004
                              • 0 Attachment
                                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 15 of 24 , May 22, 2004
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  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.