maryhelena wrote:ficino wrote:maryhelena wrote:
The Slavonic Josephus material is older than gLuke. It is older than our version of gMatthew with its mention of Archelaus (thus having Jesus at a young age during the time of Archelaus). It is older than gJohn and it's incarnation theology. It is older than gMark and its John the Baptist connection. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are developments of the Slavonic Josephus wonder-doer story. The Slavonic Josephus wonder-doer story is not a story taken from these four gospels. That anyone having these gospels in front of them and then writing the Slavonic Josephus wonder-doer story is implausible. It is, surely, more rational to look on the Slavonic Josephus wonder-doer story as a kind of storyline draft; a draft or outline that a teacher would give to students for them to develop further.
These are interesting thoughts, mh. I think for your scheme to fly, you'll need to offer a rigorous case for an early dating of the "additions" in Slavonic Josephus. The question is complicated because of the wild card factor, author's and redactor's intentions. As you point out, it's a "story." I am not sure that it's so implausible that a medieval Russian chap would use gospel accounts, other stuff in Josephus, his imagination, etc. to cobble it together. And I don't know whether there are layers of redaction even in the Slavonic.
Meščerskij said that nothing in the "additions" goes against Russian orthodox doctrine.
It's not dating that concerns me. Its the story development. That approach indicates that the Slavonic material is earlier, not later, than the NT gospels. Why would some "medieval Russian chap" write the Slavonic material - knowing full well that it contradicts the NT gospel story? Surely, it's more likely that this is early material that was side-lined when there was development in the storyline. That seems to have been the case with the Acts of Pilate and it's 7th year of Tiberius crucifixion story. When a new "Windows' comes out who wants the earlier versions? Yep, gMatthew most have been very entrenched with the faithful to survive after gLuke hit the shops....
I may be missing something very obvious, but it seems to me that you'll have to confront the dating of the narrative material in the "additions" for your schema to be persuasive. Although we've talked about some recent papers that accept a Josephan tie to that material - and I thank you for the references to Leeming and Nodet - that acceptance still is much a minority position, as far as I know.
Dating? Methinks that's a very problematic area of NT studies. I don't think questions related to the NT are going to be answered by dating manuscripts. Its the story that is relevant not what date it is found in any particular manuscript. Building arguments on dating manuscripts is foolhardy. Tomorrow a manuscript turns up that can be dated very early and all ones arguments can be reduced to dust...
In your study of the stages of the story's development, I think you also would be well served by confronting the question, why the Persians/Herod episode is so much more developed w/ details typical of romance in SJ than in gMat. One would usually suppose that embellishment of a tale is likely in a work of the SlaJos kind. That's why I've always thought the additions are later, because they look like imaginative expansions.
It's not just gMatthew that has abridged Slavonic Josephus. gLuke also did not record the elements related to followers of the wonder-doer wanting him to
"enter the city and cut down the Roman soldiers and Pilate and rule over us". gLuke settling for:
"But we had hoped that he was the one to redeem Israel". The Josephan writer leaving out all the zealot type elements but was unable to change the context for the TF. A context of Jewish disturbances in Slavonic Josephus. A different context would have been much better for the TF.
It might be the case that the gMat abridged that story, but then you'll need to show why we should think Mat abridged that pretty obviously inflated story. And why he would have cut out innocuous and briefly-mentioned details like the fact that the wise men were Persians. Maybe there's mileage in a case that SJ contains expansions that are later than the gospels but a core that is earlier than they, I don't know.
gMatthew has abridged the birth narrative in Slavonic Josephus - and developed it. The mention of Archelaus, with Jesus being a young child, moves the Slavonic Josephus birth narrative from prior to the 15th year of Herod I to late in his reign. (Actually, if Archelaus was a later addition to gMatthew - then that gospel's birth narrative can be viewed as reflecting the Slavonic Josephus dating!.) Keeping in mind that both stories have the massacre of innocents in Bethlehem. An event, contrary to both stories, that historically happened not in Bethlehem but at Herod's siege of Jerusalem in 37 b.c.e. And it was at that siege that Slavonic Josephus has some Jews debating over Daniel' prophecy re an anointed one.
ficino, how a story develops can take account of both abridgement and additions. In fact it's what is not said, what is not carried forward, that can be as worthwhile considering as the additions. Slavonic Josephus has Herodias married to Philip - as do gMark and gMatthew - Antiquities has Herodias married to a Herod. (and no, Philip never used the Herodian family name).
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.
Linguistic arguments might well have their place but they can never be the deciding factor in interpreting a story. Words can mean different things to different people (as the thread on euhemerism has shown....). The NT is first and foremost a Jesus story. Once one decides for a non-historical Jesus figure - then it is a literary approach to that story that becomes fundamental. How the story developed; what was discarded along the way and what new additions were made become avenues for research.
Consider these quote from Thomas Brodie on literary connections:
The variations between these three models (quotation, allusion, and transformation)
are like the variations, when moving house, between ( l ) keeping
the old name plate or name; (2) keeping some key furnishings and some
photos of the old house; and (3) taking the old house itself, and using its
materials as one component, major or minor, to help build the new, even if
the stones in the old sandstone walls are reduced to gravel for the driveway
so that, at first sight at least, they are unrecognizable.
The issue is pivotal. Many biblical researchers tend to reject literary
dependence if the dependence is not easily recognizable, if the hearers would
not detect it. However, what counts for the investigator is not easy recognition,
but whether, with due inquiry and patient work in the laboratory of
literary comparison, in other words, in meticulous application of appropriate
criteria, the hidden connection can be established. And the hidden connections
are vast -far, far greater in number and volume than connections that
are easily recognizable. Recognizable connections are like the few fish that
occasionally break above the surface of the ocean. The overwhelming majority
of the fish are out of sight, in the depths. The time has come for biblical
research to move out into the deep.
The concept of transformation is not alien to the New Testament. It occurs at
a key point in Mark's Gospel, at the literary centre, in the account of the
Transfiguration, where it says that Jesus meta-morphothe, literally 'was
transformed ' (Mk 9.2; cf. Mt. 1 7.2).
What is important is that within the ancient world the general concept
of transformation was familiar, so it is relatively easy to understand why
processes of transformation were so acceptable within literary composition.
Instances occur across virtually the entire range of ancient literature, nonbiblical
and biblical, Old Testament and New, and the evidence of processes
of transformation is increasing rapidly.
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.
One of the features of recent biblical studies is that several researchers,
including those concentrating on the presence of allusion/echo, have begun
to spell out the criteria for claiming that one document depends on another.
In my own case it took me several years to go from strong suspicion and
scattered evidence to being able to lay out the evidence in a reasonably
orderly way.
Thomas Brodie: Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus. Pages 130-133
Tread softly because you tread on my dreams.
W.B. Yeats
