Slavonic Josephus: Master-copy of the Jesus Story?

[maryhelena]

A Catholic scholar (yes, really...) has recently taken up the issue of the Slavonic Josephus:

Etienne Nodet: The Historical Jesus: Necessity and Limits of an Inquiry (Jewish & Christian Texts in Contexts and Related Studies)

This presentation on the Slavonic version, which has become more accessible thanks to the recent appearance of a new English translation, is intended to show its importance for a renewed understanding of certain aspects of the New Testament.

<snip>

However, Eisler’s work - which has an undeniable excess - was overall badly received, but for two distinct reasons: by Catholics, because it put in a bad light the exactness of the Gospels when Catholics were scarcely out of the Modernist crisis; by Protestants, because the Slavonic supplements, by the very fact that they spoke even in a veiled way of Jesus, were necessarily Christian interpolations. These latter, of whom Hansack is the heir, received the greatest support in an article by E. Bickermann, as always brilliant and well documented, but starting off from the same presupposition. Then, outside of questions on Slavonic philology and some jolts due to the Qumran discoveries, the matter was considered settled.

But that is not certain!

Etienne Nodet is Professor of Ancient Jewish Literature at the Ecole Biblique et Archeologique in Jerusalem.

https://www.academia.edu/6883079/The_Sl ... f_Josephus

In this pdf are examples of Nodet using the DSS in connection with the Slavonic Josephus material.

Keep in mind that it is only the historical Jesus assumption, as drawn from an interpretation of the NT gospels, that prevents the material in the Slavonic Josephus from been given credibility. Once this assumption is set aside - the material in the Slavonic Josephus can regain it's place as a very early account of a developing Jesus story.

mh, what you say in your last paragraph above is not so. I set forth various reasons why I do not find Nodet's arguments convincing:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=984&p=21359&hilit=nodet#p21272

What is not so? That your not a Jesus historicist - therefore my use of *only* is wrong?

That you disagree with Nodet is not really here or there. Scholars disagree with one another lots of times...

[ficino]

mh, what you say in your last paragraph above is not so. I set forth various reasons why I do not find Nodet's arguments convincing:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=984&p=21359&hilit=nodet#p21272

What is not so? That your not a Jesus historicist - therefore my use of *only* is wrong?

That you disagree with Nodet is not really here or there. Scholars disagree with one another lots of times...

Obviously, whether I agree with Nodet or not is not pertinent, but rather, whether his arguments are sound.

What I referred to as "not so" is your statement that "it is only the historical Jesus assumption, as drawn from an interpretation of the NT gospels, that prevents the material in the Slavonic Josephus from been given credibility." In my view, there are problems with that material, and with Nodet's arguments for its ancient provenance, and these problems are noticeable without the HJ assumption.

[maryhelena]

mh, what you say in your last paragraph above is not so. I set forth various reasons why I do not find Nodet's arguments convincing:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=984&p=21359&hilit=nodet#p21272

What is not so? That your not a Jesus historicist - therefore my use of *only* is wrong?

That you disagree with Nodet is not really here or there. Scholars disagree with one another lots of times...

Obviously, whether I agree with Nodet or not is not pertinent, but rather, whether his arguments are sound.

What I referred to as "not so" is your statement that "it is only the historical Jesus assumption, as drawn from an interpretation of the NT gospels, that prevents the material in the Slavonic Josephus from been given credibility." In my view, there are problems with that material, and with Nodet's arguments for its ancient provenance, and these problems are noticeable without the HJ assumption.

OK. Nodet's arguments aside. What, in your view, are the "problems that are noticeable" with the Slavonic Josephus material being viewed as of "ancient provenance"?

[ficino]

I should have said, "Josephan," since "ancient" covers a lot of ground and a lot of centuries.

I beg indulgence to come back to your question later, maryhelena - though I think I mentioned some problems in posts on the Two Recent Articles thread. Right now I'm trying to nail down what can be nailed about the Eutychius inscription, mentioned in the archaeological evidence thread.

cheers, f

[cienfuegos]

Contrasting, comparing the material in Slavonic Josephus with the gospel Jesus story with the intention of demonstrating a developing Jesus story. No linguistics just storyline compared to storyline.

maryhelena,

This isn't a methodology. How do you guard against your predetermined outcome? I say "predetermined" because I see no hints in what you say that you have carefully and objectively considered the alternative hypothesis and compared your favored hypothesis to that. If we apply the very same methodology "comparing the matherial"..."with the intention of demonstrating a developing Jesus story..." to Jewish Wars 6.5.3, I think we could build an ironclad case for Jesus ben Ananus being the inspiration of Mark's passion story and, I would add, even used by later authors to fill in further details of the Passion.

In your description of Brodie's 3 models, it seems to me that you are confusing what he is saying. The 3 models are categories of how ancient writers used ancient texts to develop their works. The one that relates here is "transformative." We could argue that there is a transformative relationship between the Gospels and Slavonic Josephus, but how do you determine direction of dependence? My feeling is that direction of dependence runs: Gospels ---> Slavonic Josephus. The author of SJ had several sources available to him to elaborate on the original TF. What is your methodology for determining an SJ--->Gospels? or SJ ---> TF?

[maryhelena]

I should have said, "Josephan," since "ancient" covers a lot of ground and a lot of centuries.

I beg indulgence to come back to your question later, maryhelena - though I think I mentioned some problems in posts on the Two Recent Articles thread. Right now I'm trying to nail down what can be nailed about the Eutychius inscription, mentioned in the archaeological evidence thread.

cheers, f

You may take your leave - for now....

In the meantime here is your quote from an earlier post.

From Then there are the linguistic arguments of Meščerskij. I can't follow them, because I don't know Russian, but he seemed quite convinced that earlier Germans and Istrin had been misled.Introduction, p. 6 in the volume, trans. by S. Dossoun Bates:

Istrin concluded that the trans was made from a peculiar Greek text of Josephus’ first edition with some freedom, not a close translation as Eisler thought. Then he considers the possibility that Josephus authored the additions. Meščerskij said this conclusion is “absolutely incorrect.” “[A]nalysis of the translation as a whole convinces that the insertions can in no way be traced to Josephus himself, for they are all imbued with one and the same tendency, which is completely natural and appropriate for the Old Russian translator, but is in no way connected with Josephus’ authorship.”

Below the exact quote from page 6 of the book by H. and K. Lemming:

Subsequently, however, Istrin considers the possibility of ascribing the authorship of the 'additions' to Josephus himself, albeit less assertively than Eisler: "I admit that there is no iirefutable proof for the unconditional rejection [sic] of Josephus' authorship, but an analysis of the whole Slavonic translation of the History leads logically and inevitably to acknowledging only Josephus as the author."" This conclusion is absolutely incorrect. As we shall see later, it is precisely the analysis of the translation as a whole that convinces us that the insertions can in no way be traced to Josephus himself, for they are all imbued with one and the same tendency, which is completely natural and appropriate for the Old Russian translator, but is in no way connected with Josephus' authorship".

You also posted:

Then there are the linguistic arguments of Meščerskij. I can't follow them, because I don't know Russian, but he seemed quite convinced that earlier Germans and Istrin had been misled.

The link you gave above relates to your review of Nodet' writing.

Thus, re Slavonic Josephus, all I can see is that you are upholding the essay, published in 1958, of Meščerskij.

Is the argument of Meščerskij, that the material in Slavonic Josephus does not go back to the Josephan writer of War, based purely on linguistics? Did the wonder-doer story and it's related texts not feature at all? Was linguistics allowed to override the story the material contains? Perhaps, ficino, when you come back to the thread, you might have more to say on this point.

[maryhelena]

Contrasting, comparing the material in Slavonic Josephus with the gospel Jesus story with the intention of demonstrating a developing Jesus story. No linguistics just storyline compared to storyline.

maryhelena,

This isn't a methodology. How do you guard against your predetermined outcome? I say "predetermined" because I see no hints in what you say that you have carefully and objectively considered the alternative hypothesis and compared your favored hypothesis to that.

The 'alternative hypothesis'? My 'favored hypothesis"? The gospel figure of Jesus is a composite figure. - i.e. not a historical figure. I have no intention, whatsoever, of considering the alternative. I made my decision over 30 years ago and since then have not come across any logical reason to consider the alternative. Why should I waste my time with an assumption I discarded so long ago? I'm interested in moving forward not backwards....

If we apply the very same methodology "comparing the matherial"..."with the intention of demonstrating a developing Jesus story..." to Jewish Wars 6.5.3, I think we could build an ironclad case for Jesus ben Ananus being the inspiration of Mark's passion story and, I would add, even used by later authors to fill in further details of the Passion.

Really? OK. Be my guest and produce the goods.....talk is easy...

In your description of Brodie's 3 models, it seems to me that you are confusing what he is saying. The 3 models are categories of how ancient writers used ancient texts to develop their works. The one that relates here is "transformative." We could argue that there is a transformative relationship between the Gospels and Slavonic Josephus, but how do you determine direction of dependence? My feeling is that direction of dependence runs: Gospels ---> Slavonic Josephus. The author of SJ had several sources available to him to elaborate on the original TF. What is your methodology for determining an SJ--->Gospels? or SJ ---> TF?

I beg to differ. Transformation runs from the material that is now in the Slavonic Josephus. To imagine that anyone could write such material with any NT gospel in front of them is simply ludicrous.

Indeed, re Brodie. Notice, however, this point:

So, to summarize. Three of the main methods of using existing texts are:
quotation, allusion and transformation. Among these three, biblical research
has gone far in articulating one and two - quotation, and (narrative) allusion.
The third method, insofar as it involves major transformation, is still largely
unexplored.

If ancient writers used "quotation, allusion and transformation" in creating their texts - then, today, when we want to understand their texts - we need to be aware of these three methods in our reading of their texts. It works both ways - author and reader - not simply something an author would do.

[Stephan Huller]

This is how it always proceeds in a discussion with Mary. Like the modern pop group, One Direction ...

"Jesus is a composite figure." Says whom? Mary so in other words no one of any notoriety or worth.

[maryhelena]

This is how it always proceeds in a discussion with Mary. Like the modern pop group, One Direction ...

Yep, just like Stephan Huller and his all roads lead to Marcion...talk about the pot calling the kettle black....

[cienfuegos]

Contrasting, comparing the material in Slavonic Josephus with the gospel Jesus story with the intention of demonstrating a developing Jesus story. No linguistics just storyline compared to storyline.

maryhelena,

This isn't a methodology. How do you guard against your predetermined outcome? I say "predetermined" because I see no hints in what you say that you have carefully and objectively considered the alternative hypothesis and compared your favored hypothesis to that.

The 'alternative hypothesis'? My 'favored hypothesis"? The gospel figure of Jesus is a composite figure. - i.e. not a historical figure. I have no intention, whatsoever, of considering the alternative. I made my decision over 30 years ago and since then have not come across any logical reason to consider the alternative. Why should I waste my time with an assumption I discarded so long ago? I'm interested in moving forward not backwards....

Ok, there you go. This is not scientific thinking. It is dogmatism.

If we apply the very same methodology "comparing the matherial"..."with the intention of demonstrating a developing Jesus story..." to Jewish Wars 6.5.3, I think we could build an ironclad case for Jesus ben Ananus being the inspiration of Mark's passion story and, I would add, even used by later authors to fill in further details of the Passion.

Really? OK. Be my guest and produce the goods.....talk is easy...

I don't really have to, it's been done already, admirably well:

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=853

In your description of Brodie's 3 models, it seems to me that you are confusing what he is saying. The 3 models are categories of how ancient writers used ancient texts to develop their works. The one that relates here is "transformative." We could argue that there is a transformative relationship between the Gospels and Slavonic Josephus, but how do you determine direction of dependence? My feeling is that direction of dependence runs: Gospels ---> Slavonic Josephus. The author of SJ had several sources available to him to elaborate on the original TF. What is your methodology for determining an SJ--->Gospels? or SJ ---> TF?

I beg to differ. Transformation runs from the material that is now in the Slavonic Josephus. To imagine that anyone could write such material with any NT gospel in front of them is simply ludicrous.

I want to know your methodology for determining the direction of dependence. Why is it ludicrous? What have you established for the sitz im leben of the author of SJ? Many scholars have studied this and concluded that it can't have been written by Josephus, so how is it ludicrous to imagine that someone could have written it with the NT gospel in front of them? It must not be ludicrous. I could be wrong. What specific evidence or background information are you basing your assessment that it is ludicrous "to imagine that anyone could write such material with any NT gospel in front of them..."

Indeed, re Brodie. Notice, however, this point:

So, to summarize. Three of the main methods of using existing texts are:
quotation, allusion and transformation. Among these three, biblical research
has gone far in articulating one and two - quotation, and (narrative) allusion.
The third method, insofar as it involves major transformation, is still largely
unexplored.

If ancient writers used "quotation, allusion and transformation" in creating their texts - then, today, when we want to understand their texts - we need to be aware of these three methods in our reading of their texts. It works both ways - author and reader - not simply something an author would do.

We need to be aware, of course, but it isn't the same process. One refers to a process of creation of literary artifacts, the case of modern researchers refers to examination of those artifacts.