Ken Olson wrote: ↑Sat Jun 29, 2019 1:01 pm
Ben,
Still intending to get back to you on the narrative order of the Antiquities, but less me address this first:
Ben: It is true that pseudo-Hegesippus starts paraphrasing the Testimonium Flavianum (in boldface above) before he introduces Josephus as having written about Jesus, but the phrase de quo signals this for us: one of the Jews, Josephus, gave testimony concerning this (= that which has just been written); so it makes sense that "this" which has just been written should reflect something that Josephus wrote (as well as mixing in a few details from popular interpretations of the gospels, so as to make Josephus a cosignatory of sorts). Now the Testimonium is fleshed out the rest of the way, almost in its entirety according to the textus receptus (lacking only "he was [thought to be] the Christ" and "named after him"), right up to the "thus spoke Josephus" part, which signals the end of Josephus' treatment of Jesus, with nothing in the text to cast it forward from this point. From this point forward the details are either pseudo-Hegesippus' own or drawn from the gospels.
This is a possible reading, but I am not convinced it is the best available reading. When you say "nothing in the text to cast it forward from this point" are you saying there's not positive indication that the succeeding sentence is a continuation of the the discussion of Josephus, or that there's a positive indication that what follows is part of the discussion of Josephus?
The former, if I understand you aright. There is nothing to suggest that Josephus' material does not end with "thus spoke Josephus," nor to suggest that what follows derives (or is intended to be thought to derive) from Josephus.
We seem to be disagreeing about whether that one sentence belongs with what precedes it or what follows it.
I am arguing that the sentence about the leaders of the synagogue goes with what follows, and not with anything in the Testimonium. I struggled with the Latin for a while before fully grasping that the testimony in question is not what Josephus
wrote but rather what Josephus
added to, which means that
in quo (the most natural antecedent of which is
testimonio) points to a more general testimony about Jesus, which is exactly what we find.
I still think the fact that Ps-H's Testimonium is missing it's central Christological claim in the earlier discussion, but has a Christological claim in the sentence under discussion should rouse our suspicions.
Well, a
divine claim, at any rate. If the text had something directly responding to "he was the Christ," we would not be having this conversation. And the claim is hardly a coincidence, at any rate. In my reading, it is precisely because of what Josephus admits in the Testimonium that pseudo-Hegesippus feels emboldened to cite what Jews before Josephus (that is, the
principes synagogae responsible for Jesus' death) had admitted.
(It is also not entirely clear to my why "he was the Christ" should be a more obvious back reference for the leaders admitting Jesus to be god than "if it is proper to call him a man," the idea being that, if he is not a man, then he must be a god.)
I have one further argument involving a textual variant in the Testimonium. Why does Ps-H say leading men of the synagogue (principes synagogae). It seems like ad odd choice of words, and not one which would have been suggested by Matt 26.63-64. In the Vulgate, principes synagogae is used to translate archisynagogos or, in one case (Luke 4.41) archon of the synagogue (please pardon my not using Greek here). This makes me think that the source Ps-H had in mind may have had the word archons in it, which is what the version of the Testimonium in the DE has.
This hypothesis would explain the
principes, but it would still not explain the
synagogae, since Luke 8.41 is no more evidence that the
principes synagogae had anything to do with Christ's arrest than, say, all of those many passion verses which blame Jesus' death on the
principes sacerdotum (in the Vulgate). The reference to the synagogue remains unaccounted for, it seems. I might suggest (without direct evidence) that our author assumed that the
principes sacerdotum in charge of Jesus' death were also
principes synagogae; but you might suggest (also without direct evidence) that our author assumed that the
principes/ἄρχοντες from Eusebius'
Demonstration were
principes synagogae. I am not sure why one of these should be seen as more likely than the other on this score alone.
Where my hypothesis gains a clear advantage, to my eye, is in the directness, applicability, and concentration of the parallels:
Pseudo-Hegesippus, On the Downfall of Jerusalem 2.12: 12 .... About which the Jews themselves bear witness, Josephus a writer of histories saying that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him, from which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don't believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. It does not, however, prejudge the truth that he did not believe, but rather he added more to the testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse it, in which the eternal power of Jesus Christ shone bright because even the leaders of the synagogue [principes synagogae] confessed him to be god whom they had seized for death. And truly as god speaking without limitation of persons or any fear of death he announced also the future destruction of the temple. ....
Matthew 26.59-64: 59 Now the chief priests [Vulgate: principes autem sacerdotum] and the whole Council kept trying to obtain false testimony against Jesus, so that they might put Him to death. 60 They did not find any, even though many false witnesses came forward. But later on two came forward, 61 and said, "This man stated, 'I am able to destroy the temple of God and to rebuild it in three days.'" 62 The high priest stood up and said to Him, "Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?" 63 But Jesus kept silent. And the high priest [Vulgate: princeps sacerdotum] said to Him, “I adjure You by the living God, that You tell us whether You are the Christ, the Son of God.” 64 Jesus says to him, “You have said it yourself; nevertheless I tell you, hereafter you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of Power, and coming on the clouds of heaven.”
Matthew 24.1-2: 24 Jesus came out from the temple and was going away when His disciples came up to point out the temple buildings to Him. 2 And He said to them, “Do you not see all these things? Truly I say to you, not one stone here will be left upon another, which will not be torn down.”
My hypothesis has
principes where it matters: in the passion narratives (rather than in some random corner of Luke), since the context in pseudo-Hegesippus is the death/execution of Jesus. My hypothesis has Jesus himself pointing out to the high priest that he has admitted Jesus is the Christ, the son of God; the Testimonium lacks this element of the accusers admitting such a thing. My hypothesis also posits the same source (the gospels) for the
next detail, that of the temple's predicted demise, which is mentioned in exactly the same context: the trial of Jesus before the
principes.
I freely admit that the mention of synagogues is a loose end for my hypothesis; it is also a loose end for yours (at least so far).