Ken Olson wrote: ↑Mon Jul 01, 2019 4:43 am
Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:39 pm
Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sun Jun 30, 2019 12:25 pm
Ben Smith wrote:
The text itself says "added to (the) testimony."
Right.
Non tamen veritati praeiudicat, quia non credidit sed plus addidit testimonio, quia nec incredulus et invitus negavit
Why "but he added to (the) testimony"? Why "he" and (the) instead of "it" and "his"? And does added to the testimony necessarily mean adding more testimony to an existing body of testimony rather than adding credibility to the testimony?
Either interpretation is grammatically and semantically possible. I am opting for the one that seems to cohere with what the paragraph as a whole is doing. The
in quo seems to relate back to the
testimonium (unless you have a better antecedent or idea); so my question is: in which (
in quo) testimony (
testimonio) do we find those extra details? My best answer is that they are found in the gospels, not in Testimonium Flavianum. That, I think, is the real debate here: the derivation of those details.
How do do you understand
quia nec incredulus et invitus negavit. At one time you translated this: "because, though unbelieving and unwilling, he did not deny it.
Just to be clear, I have never given a translation of my own in full; I have been using either Wade Blocker's or, much more recently, Marian Hillar's, making changes as needed to reflect my own (developing) understanding of the passage.
That is how I understand it, and I see the logical connection with what precedes it: "it added to (his) testimony, because, though unwilling and unbelieving, he did not deny it." Ps-H is appealing to Josephus as an outside witness, as he does earlier when he says "If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people." Even if the Jews don't trust the Christians, they ought to believe Josephus's testimony because he was an unbeliever. The fact that Josephus was an unwilling unbeliever adds to the *credibility* of *his* testimony.
What does "he added to the testimony, because, though unbelieving and unwilling, he did not deny it" mean? He added [his testimony] to the [body of credible] testimony because ... he did not deny it? This doesn't seem impossible to me, but the implied causality seems weak.
I see, not two, but three possible things Josephus could have done:
- Testify against Jesus.
- Refuse to testify at all.
- Testify on behalf of Jesus.
In my reading, pseudo-Hegesippus is arguing against both #1 and #2: it does not damage the truth that Josephus did not believe (
non credidit); rather (
sed), it added more (
plus addidit) to the testimony (
testimonio, the
overall testimony about Jesus, which our author understands to be equivalent to the truth that he just mentioned), because, despite being unbelieving and unwilling, he did not refuse (
nec incredulus et invitus negavit; I think I prefer the intransitive "did not refuse," meaning that Josephus did not refuse his duty to truth as an historian, to the transitive "did not deny," but either translation is possible). This reading avoids any anticlimax, since merely being reluctant to lie as an historian would not necessarily mean that Josephus would have to actually testify
for Jesus; he could have remained silent, but that would mean refusing his duty, so to speak, and pseudo-Hegesippus is happy to report that he did not refuse.
What does his unwillingness and unbelief have to do with it?
They are the possible motives for Josephus' refusal of his duty. Despite his being an unbeliever, Josephus still came through in the clutch. Despite being injured, Kirk Gibson still hit one of the most famous home runs in World Series history. That sort of thing.
Back to this statement of yours:
The fact that Josephus was an unwilling unbeliever adds to the *credibility* of *his* testimony.
I understand what you are saying here, and it is not impossible that our author could mean this, but he actually does give a direct object for the verb
addidit, and that object is
plus ("more"). But more of what? If it is more of the same (that is, more testimony), then it hardly needs expressed (in fact, it would be pedantic to express it). A common question in our TV procedurals is: "Do you wish to add more to your testimony?" It would be awkward to ask: "Do you wish to add more testimony to your testimony?" If what is being added to the/his testimony is just general enhancement, just good stuff overall, then sure, we can include credibility in that good stuff
Non tamen veritati praeiudicat, quia non credidit sed plus addidit testimonio, quia nec incredulus et invitus negavit.
I think I agree that in quo seems to relate back to the testimonium (interesting way to put it). But if testimonium means what Josephus testified to, as you seem to allow is a possible reading, then that would mean that the statement about the leaders of the synagogue confessing Jesus to be god/divine came from the Testimonium Flavianum, would it not?
Yes, unless
in quo is more vague than I am reading it as (which is possible, I think, given the Latin penchant for vagueness in such expressions, but also less likely, to my mind). If the antecedent for
in quo is
testimonio (as I think it is), then it makes the most sense for what follows to belong to that testimony. So, if you are correct that it is Josephus' testimony, then what follows ought to belong (according to our author) to Josephus' testimony. This is what I was referring to early on when I said that I was not sure what the intended relationship between Josephus' own testimony and these explanatory details was supposed to be. On the one hand, I was pretty sure (still am) that both details came from the gospels; on the other, I was not sure how to read
in quo vaguely enough not to let it refer directly back to
testimonio, which in Wade Blocker's translation was definitely Josephus' own testimony. Also impeding my understanding was the simple fact that we call this paragraph the Testimonium Flavianum, so any reference to
testimonium in such a context kind of sounds like it belongs to Josephus. But of course that is a modern issue. Once I ignored the given translation long enough, my current understanding of the Latin came easily; after that, in the course of researching it, I found that Marian Hillar's translation reflected my own understanding: "Nevertheless it does not prejudice truth because he did not believe, rather it adds to
the testimony...."
Your reason for rejecting that reading is that you find your explanation of the origin of the details of that statement clearly better than mine?
Almost completely correct. I do slightly prefer my own reading of the Latin for its own sake, because it seems more natural to me on a couple of points (the
plus being one of them), but that preference is too slight for me to use as a real argument, I think. My main argument is and has always been that I think that pseudo-Hegesippus is lifting those later details from the gospels, not from Josephus. I have also since then expressed my opinion that pseudo-Hegesippus may well indeed refer to the Christ line, but only in its "believed to be the Christ" form, as per Alice Whealey. (Please understand that a lot of this conversation has been a matter of me remembering ideas and notions I once held, whether on my own or from various scholars, many years ago. I had completely forgotten about pseudo-Hegesippus' use of
crediderunt shortly after
gentilium, similar to how Jerome has
credebatur shortly after
gentilibus, until one of my runs through the Latin reminded me.) If pseudo-Hegesippus does include the line in question, that is my current bet, and it necessarily involves the "believed to be" form.
I will go so far as to suggest that an argument from internal evidence can be made for "he was believed to be the Christ" being the original form of the Testimonium, regardless of origin, since it so naturally follows from Jesus swaying many of the Jews and gentiles alike:
they are the ones believing that he is the Christ. This comes together seamlessly in Jerome's rendition. Without the element of belief, that blunt "he was the Christ" would seem to have more impact after the resurrection or after the miracles, not after the mention of followers; lots of nonmessianic people can garner followers.
Have you ever considered Eusebius being the forger, but with "he was believed to be the Christ" in place instead of "he was the Christ," and then following Whealey's account of its being changed in manuscripts of Eusebius? Is it just that you think "he was the Christ" is too prevalent in the stream, so that "he was believed to be the Christ" has to be a later variant?