Two New Articles on Testimonium Flavianum

[MattMorales]

It's not used as a name in Josephus, though. In both the TF and at AJ 20.200, we have "the Christ." That phrase is not defined by Josephus. In my mind, this is a big strike against its authenticity.

I believe it's just "called Christ." I'll defer to Doherty on this one (oh, the irony):

Strictly speaking, in “the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ,” the words “the one” are not necessary. The word “tou” in “ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou” represents a grammatical practice in Greek of repeating or inserting the article before an attributive adjective when it follows the noun it modifies. For example, “the good work” is rendered “to ergon to agathon (lit., the work the good).” In our case, “legomenou” is a participle, but used as an adjective modifying “Iēsou,” and thus the article “tou” is inserted. The Greek is not necessarily making a special point of saying “the one” as the English suggests. Translations of the passage usually include “the one” but sometimes it is merely “called Christ.” (Compare Matthew 4:18, where Jesus saw “Simon called Peter”: “Simōna ton legomenon Petron.”) The latter is the form I will use.

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/supp16.htm#Ant20

Regarding AJ 8, you can't really capitalize the C. χριστὀν there is just an adjective describing the stone of the wall in the palace. You can't see the stone because it's χριστὀν, i.e. plastered over and decorated with paintings.

Still an interesting example...

[ficino]

It's not used as a name in Josephus, though. In both the TF and at AJ 20.200, we have "the Christ." That phrase is not defined by Josephus. In my mind, this is a big strike against its authenticity.

I believe it's just "called Christ." I'll defer to Doherty on this one (oh, the irony):

Strictly speaking, in “the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ,” the words “the one” are not necessary. The word “tou” in “ton adelphon Iēsou tou legomenou Christou” represents a grammatical practice in Greek of repeating or inserting the article before an attributive adjective when it follows the noun it modifies. For example, “the good work” is rendered “to ergon to agathon (lit., the work the good).” In our case, “legomenou” is a participle, but used as an adjective modifying “Iēsou,” and thus the article “tou” is inserted. The Greek is not necessarily making a special point of saying “the one” as the English suggests. Translations of the passage usually include “the one” but sometimes it is merely “called Christ.” (Compare Matthew 4:18, where Jesus saw “Simon called Peter”: “Simōna ton legomenon Petron.”) The latter is the form I will use.

What Doherty says applies only to AJ 20.200.

AJ 18.64 says ὁ χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν. Feldman prints a minuscule χ, so I reproduce it. No Greek speaker would take this to mean anything other than “this man was the christ” or the equivalent. The article in this context precludes “C/christ” from being a name. It is a property of “this man,” a designation. Feldman translates “He was the Messiah.”

So, back to 20.200, how is it intelligible that there was a chap that people just called "Christos" as an alternative name? The whole reference is so cryptic that it requires the TF to gain some intelligibility. And the TF has Jesus, the "wise man," designated as "the Christ," foretold by the prophets. The prophets certainly weren't foretelling that some guy named Jesus would have a second name, Christos. They were foretelling the holder of a God-appointed office.

Josephus' pagan readership could have made no sense of two tossed-off, unexplained references to a Χριστός. There was a group, though, to whom linkage of Jesus and Christos was perfectly natural, and we know what that group was.

I was already leaning toward deeming the TF and the key words of AJ 20.200 interpolations, but our present discussion has gone a long way to confirm me in that judgment. It will take a lot to make me tip back the other way, so hit me with your best shot, Matt, if you want to argue for the authenticity of these two "Christos" references!

[ficino]

One also needs to be alert for the possible connotations of λεγόμενος. Literally it means "spoken of (as)," and it can be used with this neutral connotation. But sometimes an author uses this adjective, or its semantic relative, καλούμενος, to signal a technical term (cf. the expression so often found in my Italian guidebooks, "cosidetto," i.e. "that which is designated by this term of art," as in "le cosidette lunette" for a type of window opening in architecture). And then, both λεγόμενος and καλούμενος can be used with ironical or skeptical connotations when the author wants to imply that A is called X but isn't really X.

A good discussion of these three connotative values of καλοὐμενος | λεγόμενος -- i.e. neutral, ironical/skeptical, and technical -- is Timonthy Crowley's paper on "Aristotle's 'So-Called Elements'" in Phronesis 53 (2008) 223-42 (sorry I don't have a free download to link).

The problem is that one has to rely on context to settle on the best connotative range of λεγόμενος, and, it is hoped, build a scheme of how the author tends to use it in different contexts. I haven't done a word study of this adjective in Josephus. But a technical connotation would seem to fit AJ 20.200. Since "Christos" is not explained, however, it is hard to give a convincing account of what Josephus would be doing by putting in λεγομένου as an indicator of (unexplained) technical terminology.

I think the same problem arises if we take λεγομένου there as ironical/skeptical, sc. "the so-called Christ (who really wasn't)." The AJ is supposed to be presenting Judaism to non-Jews. The gentile readership won't catch irony or skepticism if they have no clue what is meant by "Christos." Generally, Josephus goes to some length to explain Jewish terms, customs, etc.

Can we say that λεγομένου just bears the neutral connotation, i.e. "whom people (also) called Christos"? Cf. AJ 1.337: "And Jacob arrived at The Tents, so called even today", Ἰάκωβος δὲ ἀφίκετο εἰς τὰς ἔτι νῦν Σκηνὰς λεγομένας. But the context makes clear that this is a place name (I don't know whether word order of name before "so called" matters). The proposal that "so-called" bears a neutral connotation as befits a name still makes Josephus out to be explaining the clear (James' brother's name was Jesus) by the obscure, since the reader otherwise does not know who Jesus Christos was (except of course from the TF or if the reader knows about Christianity).

[maryhelena]

For anyone willing to consider the Slavonic Josephus wonder-doer story in connection with the Josephan Antiquities wise-man story ........ below is a chart demonstrating that connection. The chart also indicates why Eusebius would want to interpolate/update the Antiquites wise-man story: It was not simply to Christianize the text. The Acts of Pilate and its 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story was a problem for Eusebius. The ‘solution’ was to update the Antiquities wise-man story in accordance with gLuke’ updated birth narrative of 6 c.e., and its post 15th year of Tiberius crucifixion story. However, Eusebius could not move the Josephan text to a chronological position that would correspond with gLuke - so - he simply made the text more in your face Christian. (gLuke already having Christianized the wise-man Antiquties story. (and by extension the Slavonic Josephus wonder-doer story) Eusebius simply updated the Antiquities text to correspond with gLuke’ linking of this text with Jesus of Nazareth.

(Regarding the Emmaus Narrative, gLuke and Josephus:

http://www.josephus.org/GoldbergJosephusLuke1995.pdf

The Coincidences of the Emmaus Narrative of
Luke and the Testimonium of Josephus
Gary J. Goldberg, Ph.D.)


[td]His works, that is to say, were godly, and he wrought wonder-deeds amazing and full of power. Therefore it is not possible for me to call him a man [simply]. But again, looking at the existence he shared with all, I would also not call him an angel...And many from the folk followed him and received his teachings. (Pilate) And he had that [color=#BF0000][b]wonder-doer[/b][/color] brought up.[/td] [td]For the things which they have dared to say concerning the passion of the Saviour are put into the fourth consulship of Tiberius, which occurred in the seventh year of his reign; at which time it is plain that [color=#808000][b]Pilate [/b][/color]was not yet ruling in Judea, if the testimony of Josephus is to be believed, who clearly shows in the above-mentioned work that [color=#808000][b]Pilate [/b][/color]was made procurator of Judea by Tiberius in the twelfth year of his reign.[/td] [td]for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. .....[/td] [td]powerful in word and deed before God and all the people[/td] [td]For he was a doer of wonderful works, and a teacher of such men as receive the truth in gladness.... [color=#8040BF][b]And he attached to himself many of the Jews, and many also of the Greeks[/b][/color]. [color=#BF0000][b]He was the Christ[/b][/color][/td] [td]for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. ......[color=#8040BF][b].He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles[/b][/color]. [color=#BF0000][b]He was [the] Christ.[/b][/color][/td] [/tr]

Slavonic Josephus: wonder-doer crucified under Pilate. (birth narrative prior to the 15th year of Herod 1).	Acts of Pilate = 7th year of Tiberius Crucifixion story  - 19 or 21 c.e. Eusebius:  The History of the Church. The Slavonic Josephuss dating would make the wonder-doer between 46/41 years old at crucifixion in the 7th year of Tiberius. This would link with gJohn and it's Jesus figure "not yet 50 years old".	Antiquities: 93/94 c.e. Wise-man story placed prior to expulsion of Jews from Rome = 19 c.e. Note: placed after the position of Slavonic Josephus where the wonder-doer story is placed between the issue of the 'semaia' and the issue of the water pipes. Pilate in Judea prior to 19 c.e. Note also the wonder-doer story is now shortened and the zealot linkage missing..	gLuke: Birth narrative moved to 6 c.e.  Crucifixion under Pilate - after 15th year of Tiberius.  gLuke updates the Slavonic Josephus wonder-worker story via the Emmaus Narrative by linking Jesus to that story -   and simultaneously negating its  relevance for the Acts of Pilate timeline.	Eusebius: 260/265 – 339/340 c.e. Dealing with the Acts of Pilate problem in his day: The Emmaus Narrative of gLuke, dated after the 15th year of Tiberius, allows Eusebius to interpolate/update the Josephan Antiquities wise-man story. Thereby attempting to discredit the Josephan wise-man story as a support for the earlier Acts of Pilate dating of the crucifixion story.	Antiquities TF:  Eusebius Interpolated  Jesus, Christ, Greeks and Christians into the Josephan wise- man text: plus the third day from gLuke.
At that time also a man came forward,—if even it is fitting to call him a man [simply]. His nature as well as his form were a man's; but his showing forth was more than [that] of a man.	Accordingly the forgery of those who have recently given currency to acts against our Saviour is clearly proved. For the very date given in them shows the falsehood of their fabricators.	Now there was about this time a wise-man, if it be lawful to call him a man;	The Emmaus Narrative: “About Jesus of Nazareth,” they replied. “He was a prophet". ....	Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man;	And there lived at that time Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be proper to call him a man.
The teachers of the Law were [therefore] envenomed with envy and gave thirty talents to Pilate, in order that he should put him to death. And he, after he had taken [the money], gave them consent that they should themselves carry out their purpose. And they took him and crucified him according to the ancestral law.		And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross...	The chief priests and our rulers handed him over to be sentenced to death, and they crucified him;	When Pilate, on the accusation of our principal men, condemned him to the cross.... Moreover, the race of Christians, named after him, continues down to the present day.	And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross.... And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day.
But when they saw his power, that he accomplished everything that he would by word, they urged him that he should enter the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate and rule over us.			but we had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel
Again Claudius sent his authorities to those states—Cuspius Fadus and Tiberius Alexander......many had been discovered as servants of the previously described wonder-doer; and as they spake to the people about their teacher —that he is living, although he is dead, and that he will free you from your servitude,—many from the folk gave ear to the above-named and took upon themselves their precept...		....those who had loved him previously did not cease to do so.	And what is more, it is the third day since all this took place.... They asked each other, “Were not our hearts burning within us while he talked with us on the road and opened the Scriptures to us?” They got up and returned at once to Jerusalem. There they found the Eleven and those with them, assembled together and saying, “It is true! The Lord has risen.	..those who had loved him in the beginning did not cease loving him......For he appeared unto them again alive on the third day, the divine prophets having told these and countless other wonderful things concerning him.	..those that loved him at the first did not forsake him;.... for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.

[ficino]

Great chart, thanks, maryhelena! I think, though, that the claims of Slavonic Josephus to transmit an authentic, earlier text of the BJ are weak.

I think it was you who called to my attention H. and K. Leeming, eds. Josephus’ Jewish War and its Slavonic Version. A Synoptic Comparison of the English Translation by H. St. J. Thackeray with the Critical Edition by N.A. Meščerskij of the Slavonic Version in the Vilna Manuscript translated into English by H. Leeming and L. Osinkina. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003.

From Meščerskij’s 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.”

[maryhelena]

Great chart, thanks, maryhelena! I think, though, that the claims of Slavonic Josephus to transmit an authentic, earlier text of the BJ are weak.

I think it was you who called to my attention H. and K. Leeming, eds. Josephus’ Jewish War and its Slavonic Version. A Synoptic Comparison of the English Translation by H. St. J. Thackeray with the Critical Edition by N.A. Meščerskij of the Slavonic Version in the Vilna Manuscript translated into English by H. Leeming and L. Osinkina. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2003.

From Meščerskij’s 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.”

Yep, in that other thread on the TF I called your attention to how Slavonic Josephus is being used by Etienne Nodet
ECOLE BIBLIQUE ET ARCHEOLOGIQUE FRANCAISE DE JERUSALEM, Bible and Archeology, Faculty Member.

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

Link to earlier thread:
viewtopic.php?p=21237#p21237

I would suggest that to make any sense re Eusebius interpolating/updating the Josephan TF one needs to consider his context i.e. the Acts of Pilate and its 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story. Once one does that i.e. consider the Acts of Pilate - then, it follows that a crucifixion around 21 c.e. links up with both the birth narrative in Slavonic Josephus and the 'not yet 50 years " of gJohn. gLuke, with it's 6 c.e. and 15th year of Tiberius story about a 30 year old crucified figure, is the final gospel update - it was not the original gospel story - as is evidenced by the Slavonic Josephus, the Acts of Pilate and gJohn. All of which, of course, indicate that the gospel story is not about a human flesh and blood man but about a literary figure; a literary figure whose 'life' story can be updated to suit the writer's own purpose. Hence the reluctance of scholars to take on board the implications inherent in the Slavonic Josephus story.

[ficino]

Yep, in that other thread on the TF I called your attention to how Slavonic Josephus is being used by Etienne Nodet
ECOLE BIBLIQUE ET ARCHEOLOGIQUE FRANCAISE DE JERUSALEM, Bible and Archeology, Faculty Member.

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

Link to earlier thread:
viewtopic.php?p=21237#p21237

Yes, and you'll recall my monster post of reluctance to share Nodet's confidence in Slavonic Josephus.

I would suggest that to make any sense re Eusebius interpolating/updating the Josephan TF one needs to consider his context i.e. the Acts of Pilate and its 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story. Once one does that i.e. consider the Acts of Pilate - then, it follows that a crucifixion around 21 c.e. links up with both the birth narrative in Slavonic Josephus and the 'not yet 50 years " of gJohn. gLuke, with it's 6 c.e. and 15th year of Tiberius story about a 30 year old crucified figure, is the final gospel update - it was not the original gospel story - as is evidenced by the Slavonic Josephus, the Acts of Pilate and gJohn. All of which, of course, indicate that the gospel story is not about a human flesh and blood man but about a literary figure; a literary figure whose 'life' story can be updated to suit the writer's own purpose. Hence the reluctance of scholars to take on board the implications inherent in the Slavonic Josephus story.

I've brought Leeming and Leeming back to the library, so I can't check this, but I am in the dark about where in Slavonic Josephus one finds the "birth narrative" that you mention in your chart. It's not one of the "additions" to the BJ that were translated into English by Mead from Frey's German transl. Can you provide the text of the birth narrative of Jesus in Slavonic Josephus?

[maryhelena]

I've brought Leeming and Leeming back to the library, so I can't check this, but I am in the dark about where in Slavonic Josephus one finds the "birth narrative" that you mention in your chart. It's not one of the "additions" to the BJ that were translated into English by Mead from Frey's German transl. Can you provide the text of the birth narrative of Jesus in Slavonic Josephus?

Page 179/180/181

Having so spoken (Herod)sent them off to the
innkeepers, escorting them with guards who were
to keep watch on them, and also appointing
other guards who knew the Persian tongue
to listen to what they said.
When they were closeted with a Persian who
was (there) they began to grieve, saying:
“Our fathers and our children have been excellent
astrologers, and, watching the stars, never lied.
And we too, taught by them have never distorted
the message of the stars. What can this be?
Deceit or error? The star image appeared to us
signifying the birth of (a) king
by whom the whole world will be held.
And gazing on that (star) we have been making
our way for a year and a half to this city; and we
have not found the son of (a)king. And the star
is (now)hidden from us. We have indeed been
deceived! But we shall send the gifts we had
prepared for the infant to the king and ask him
to let us(return) to our fatherland”.
And while they were thus speaking, the guards
came to the king and told him everything.
and he sent for the Persians.
But while they were on their way
that remarkable star appeared to them (again)
And they were filled with joy.
And they went by night to Herod with boldness.
And he said to them (confidentially), away from
everybody (else): “Why do you sadden my heart
and distress my soul by not speaking the truth?.
Why have you come here?”
They told him: “King, we have no double-talk.
But we are sons of Persia. Astronomy,
which is out science and our craft, our ancestors
took over from the Chaldeans. As we gazed on
the stars we have never been wrong.
And a star (of) ineffable (beauty) appeared to us,
separate from all (the other) stars.
For it was not one of the seven planets,
not one of the spearmen.
not one of the swordsmen,
not one of the archers, not one of the comets,
but it was exceedingly brilliant like the sun,
and it was joyful.
and gazing on it we have even reached you.
And while we were here, the star disappeared
right up to the present (moment). But now,
as we were coming to you, it appeared (again).
And Herod said: “Can you show it to me?’
And they said: “We reckon the whole world
sees it.” And they stepped out on to an open
porch and they showed him the star.
And when Herod saw it, he marvelled greatly.
and he worshipped God for he was a devout man.
And he gave them an escort (composed of (his
brother and (some) nobles,
to go and see the one born.
But as they were on their way the star
disappeared once more, and they came back again.
And the Persians begged him to let them go on
their own. (promising) that having sought out
(the child) they would come back and tell him.
And they swore him an oath, believing that
the star would tell them to return by that road.
And after waiting a year for them.
And they did not even come to (see) him.
And he was furious and summoned the priests
(who were his )advisors and asked if any of
them understood (the meaning of)that star.
And they answered him:”It is written:
“A star shall shine forth from Jacob
and a man shall arise from Judah’.
And Daniel writes that a priest is to come,
but we do not know who this is. We reckon
that he will be born without a father.”

(Then) Herod said: “How can we discover him?”
and Levi said: Send throughout the whole land of
Judaea (asking)how many male infants have
been born since the Persians saw the star
right up to the present day, kill them all, and
that (child) will also be killed. And your
kingdom will be secure for you and your sons
and even for your great-grandsons”.
And immediately he sent forth heralds throughout
the whole land that all (of) the male sex born
from now and (back) to the third year are to be
honoured and to receive (a gift of)gold. (When)
enquiring whether any (male infant) had been born
without a father they were to pretend that (Herod)
would adopt him as his son and make him king.
And since they did not discover a single such
(infant), he gave orders to kill all
6 myriad and 3000 infants.
When all were weeping and waiting at the
shedding of blood, the priests came and begged
him to release the innocents; but he threatened
them all the more (telling them) to keep silent.
And they all fell prostrate and lay to the sixth hour
at his feet. And the king’s rage prevailed.
Later, they rose and told him:”Listen to your
servants, so that the Most High
may favour you. It is written that the
Anointed One is (to be)born in Bethlehem.
Even if you have no mercy on your servants,
kill those infants of Bethlehem and let the
others go”. And he gave the order and they
killed all the infants of Bethlehem.”
In the fifteenth year of his reign
he (re)built the temple
and renovated its walls,
Enclosing double the ground
and spending wealth untold.
embellishing it with beauties ineffable.

[ficino]

Thanks!

Are we to believe that Josephus wrote all the above in an earlier form of the War, or that a later Christian cribbed it from Matthew (and perhaps other texts - I don't know about the Revelation of the Magi) and embellished/reworked? I think the better answer is fairly apparent.

If the seemingly Christianizing additions in Slavonic Josephus are such, and if they're late, as Mescerskij thought, then it would not be apposite to bring them into a discussion of Eusebius' agenda.

[maryhelena]

Thanks!

Are we to believe that Josephus wrote all the above in an earlier form of the War, or that a later Christian cribbed it from Matthew (and perhaps other texts - I don't know about the Revelation of the Magi) and embellished/reworked? I think the better answer is fairly apparent.

I'm not saying Josephus wrote the wonder-doer story and the birth narrative that is now in Slavonic Josephus. All I'm saying is that these texts might have been in the original version of War. I'm more inclined to think the Josephan writer was quoting a source. However, that Josephus recorded such a source is itself of interest......

Thinking, assuming, its all interpolations does not get one anywhere.....