Two New Articles on Testimonium Flavianum

[ficino]

Those who are interested in the TF and who have access to the Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic and Roman Period may be interested in these recent contributions. I post this long summary because it may not be easy for many to acquire access to that journal.

I. “The Latin Translations of Josephus on Jesus, John the Baptist, and James: Critical Texts of the Latin Translation of the Antiquities and Rufinus’ Translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History Based on Manuscripts and Early Printed Editions,” David B. Levenson and Thomas R. Martin, JSJ 45.1 (2014) 1-79.

This huge article goes into detail about the Latin branch of the textual tradition of the TF, both via the Latin translation of Josephus and via the Latin tradition of Eusebius. The latter includes Jerome's famous version of the TF in his article on Josephus in De Viris Illustribus 13. Jerome's is famous because it states, not "this man was the Christ," as we find in the MS. traditions of Josephus and Eusebius, but "and he was believed to be the Christ," et credebatur esse Christus. But MS. unanimity is lacking even in this reading!

As was pointed out in the Alice Whealey thread, the Syriac chronicle used by Michael the Syrian also seems to have had "was believed," since that is the reading in the one Syriac MS. of Michael and in the best of the Armenian versions of his chronicle, to judge from the French translation made by Victor Langlois (Chronique de Michel le Grand Patriarche des Syriens Jacobites traduite pour la première fois sur la version arménienne du prêtre Ischôk. Venice, 1868). The latter is available online.

I am mulling over this apparent confirmation of "was believed" by two disparate traditions of versions. As I said on the Whealey thread, I don't share her confidence that this confirmation helps establish Josephan authorship of the TF. But I wonder whether the "was/was believed" variants are Eusebius' own author variants, since they crop up in branches of the tradition of his version of the TF, not in MSS. of Josephus.

II. Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a ‘Neutral’ Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63-64,” JSJ 45.3 (2014) 326-65.

B.-R. argues, against the current mainstream view, that the TF -- reading something like ἐνομίζετο, "was believed" -- exhibits an unsympathetic, not a neutral, attitude toward Jesus. Although Josephus was not baldly hostile and need not have displayed the anti-Jesus sentiments of Jews of later times, B.-R. finds colorations in the TF of disapproval of Jesus as a politically subversive messianic pretender. He does a good job of showing the weakness of arguments that the attitude of the TF is neutral (against Meier, Van Voorst et al.). I particularly like his making the structure of arguments explicit and pinpointing fallacies. Some of the phrases that B.-R. finds negative, based on their usage in other places in Josephus, are:
1. the opening Γίνεται δὲ , which often introduces narratives of tumults in Josephus
2. διδάσκαλος , "teacher," often has negative connotations in Jos.
3. ditto for ἡδονῇ δέχεσθαι , "receive with pleasure," which tends to describe tumultuous behavior of crowds
4. ἀγαπήσαντες can mean "be content with" or actively "love". Eisler recognized both meanings in Jos and adduced BJ 1.171 of Aristobulus initiating troubles, where he thinks that verb refers to partisanship toward Aristobulus: τοὺς μὲν ἐπιθυμοῦντας μεταβολῆς, τοὺς δ’ἀγαπῶντάς αὐτὸν πάλαι – a close parallel to the TF.
etc

B.-R. speculates that Christian scribes removed some even more pointed references to Jesus as a perceived political threat, since the whole TF is shorter than the other calamity narratives that surround it in context, and as we have it, it does not narrate tumults or riots as the other narratives do in AJ 18.55-89.

The last point raises the issue, is the TF wholly interpolated, since it does stand out as anomalous in context for NOT narrating disturbances. The other calamities that Pilate visited upon the Jews are results somehow of disturbances or fears of same. I was disappointed that B.-R. did not give more argument for the mainstream view, which he accepts, that our TF is a modified form of Josephus' original. The only arguments for authenticity that he does sketch are:
1. vocab and style consistent with Jos.
2. some parts are not what we'd expect a Christian interpolator to say
3. variation in the textual tradition not easily explained as author's variants
4. Origen says Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ, a statement unmotivated if Jos never mentioned Jesus
5. internal tensions show at least two hands at work in redaction, which argues that our TF is not wholly genuine and not wholly forged.

B.-R. ends by assailing mainstream scholars who are, he says, uncomfortable with the view that Jesus was connected to anti-Roman resistance ideology. Therefore these scholars don't want to allow that the TF was altered by Christians who themselves were uncomfortable with that insinuation or who thought it simply erroneous.

[Stephan Huller]

Very interesting and informative. Thank you

[Roger Pearse]

Interesting; thank you.

I wish these articles were online. Infuriating that they are not.

[ficino]

They are online - behind Brill's paywall.

[MrMacSon]

.
II. Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “Was the Hypothetical Vorlage of the Testimonium Flavianum a ‘Neutral’ Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on Antiquitates Judaicae 18.63-64,” JSJ 45.3 (2014) 326-65.

B.-R. argues, against the current mainstream view, that the TF -- reading something like ἐνομίζετο, "was believed" -- exhibits an unsympathetic, not a neutral, attitude toward Jesus. Although Josephus was not baldly hostile and need not have displayed the anti-Jesus sentiments of Jews of later times, B.-R. finds colorations in the TF of disapproval of Jesus as a politically subversive messianic pretender.

• <snip>

B.-R. speculates that Christian scribes removed some even more pointed references to Jesus as a perceived political threat, since the whole TF is shorter than the other calamity narratives that surround it in context, and as we have it, it does not narrate tumults or riots as the other narratives do in AJ 18.55-89.

The last point raises the issue, is the TF wholly interpolated, since it does stand out as anomalous in context for NOT narrating disturbances.

I was reading a similar proposition somewhere else recently, but can't full recall at present. I can't even remember if I posted it of this forum.

A substitution for Jesus ben Ananais? Judas the Gallilean ??

[Peter Kirby]

That a longer, negative reference was redacted into the Testimonium we know and love seems to me the "grown up" hypothesis for a Josephan reference to Jesus.

The hypothesis of a tiny, encyclopedia-style neutral-to-positive entry on Jesus just quickly falls apart for anyone who doesn't feel a need to believe in it.

The hypothesis that the only reference to Jesus was in the 20th book is itself just a bit of apologetic conceit, ammunition for debate that doesn't make any real sense either.

[MrMacSon]

I was referring to 18.3.3 originally being all about someone else ...

[Peter Kirby]

Okay, there are those ideas too.

The strongest hypothesis may be the simplest- Josephus didn't mention Jesus.

[MrMacSon]

The strongest hypothesis may be the simplest- Josephus didn't mention ["the"] Jesus.

Sure; but the argument was text had also been removed: it may not have been removal of reference to J. ben Ananais Judas the Gallilean that was proposed; it may have been a section of text about Antigonus or someone else that had been proposed as being removed

[ficino]

Bermejo-Rubio does not hold that the TF was written by Josephus about someone else and redacted into a reference to the Jesus of the Christians. AJ 18.63-64 appears in a rundown of calamities suffered by the Jews during the time of Pilate. I don't see any reason to suppose that Josephus was talking about Antigonus or Jesus ben Ananias here, for neither died during the governorship of Pilate. I can't see how there are any viable hypotheses other than: 1. the whole TF was forged; 2. the TF was substantially what we have but a. had somewhat more or b. had somewhat less.