Slavonic Josephus: Master-copy of the Jesus Story?

[maryhelena]

More year of certitude than anyone should ever dream of having with respect to a topic that can't possibly be explained with any certainty.

And this from a man who published - and is still selling - a ludicrous book about Agrippa being at the Jesus crucifixion.......

By the time he was only eight or nine years of age, Marcus Agrippa believed himself to be, and was accepted as, the once and for all Messiah of the Jewish people – though he espoused a new religious covenant that was open to all, Jew and Gentile alike. He was anointed as such, not only in Palestine but far away in Egyptian Alexandria – undoubtedly on that very throne with its ciphered inscriptions that can now be seen in Venice. His position as Messiah had been proclaimed by Jesus himself during his own ministry, and Marcus Agrippa was present at Jesus’ crucifixion.

Huller, Stephan. The Real Messiah: The Throne of St. Mark and the True Origins of Christianity (Kindle Locations 107-108). Watkins Publishing. Kindle Edition.

I take it, from your comments above, that you have no belief, no certainty, in what you are selling - and are crossing finger the public are gullible enough to pay for your imaginative musings....

[Clive]

Gudzij expressed his support for the view of Berendts and Istrin that the source of the Old Russian translation was a now non-extant Greek text that ante-dated the surviving Greek tradition and, in all probability, had included the “Additions” found in the Old Russian text

I think there is a very interesting possibility about what this Greek text is!

Even theologians who are less daring in framing hypotheses continue to stumble upon traces of some ancient drama that appears to underlie the passion narrative.[4] S.G.F. Brandon is impressed by the superb theatrical montage of the trial of Jesus[5] ; Raymond Brown finds that John’s gospel contains touches worthy of great drama in many of its scenes and suggests that our text may be the product of a dramatic rewriting on such a scale that little historical material remains.[6] But none of these scholars has succeeded in reconstructing this drama or identifying its author. They came very close to the truth but missed a crucial elementthe drama that constituted the kernel of the passion story was not a primitive ritual performance, but a tragedy of considerable subtlety and sophistication.

The gospels themselves contain evidence that the creator of this tragedy was someone imbued with the cultural values of the early Roman Empire, a playwright of unusual abilities, who used drama as a vehicle for expressing specific philosophical concepts. The gospels of Mark and Luke originated in Rome in the late fifties or early sixties A.D., a period that coincided with the last great flourishing of Roman tragedy in the work of Lucius Annaeus Seneca (3 B.C.–65 A.D.). Seneca was the author of at least nine tragedies, all modeled on other, more ancient dramas. His philosophical writings are still admired for their elegant exposition of the Stoic view of life. Was it Seneca who wrote the tragedy on the passion of Jesus that the evangelists used in constructing their narratives? A question such as this can never be answered with certitude. It can be, however, adopted as a working hypothesis, whose success can be judged by the extent to which it helps solve the innumerable enigmas of the passion narratives.

Seneca’s choice of Jesus as a tragic hero may at first seem surprising; but we must remember that there was a whole gendre of Roman tragedy that dealt with historical events from the recent past (the so-called fabulae praetextae). Moreover, Seneca had a lifelong interest in oriental religions and wrote several books on the subject.[7] That Seneca had received some information about the founder of Christianity may be inferred from the allusion in one of his works to an unnamed individual who had aspired to royalty, but instead was condemned to suffer a cruel death upon the cross.[8] Seneca encountered, in the trial of Jesus, a subject worthy of his aspirations as a philosopher and dramatist. His treatment of it was strictly within the conventions of the ancient theater, since it corresponded point by point with the original cultic tragedy of Dionysus, which every subsequent tragedy tried to emulate:

The hero is defeated in a struggle.
He is killed in a sacrificial ritual.
A messenger arrives, announcing his fate, and the chorus responds with its lamentations.
The body is brought onto the stage and is buried.
There follows a recognition that the hero is not truly dead, but has gained immortality. He appears to men as a god, and mourning turns into a joyful celebration.[9]

http://www.nazarenus.com/0-4-tragospel.htm

My argument is that SJ is based on this lost work of Seneca. SJ is not a master copy but is also derivative. The Russian version uses more pre existing materials than others.

We may then have a further argument about was Seneca working whole cloth from imagination or on stories from Jerusalem about either or another oriental cult or an actual person.

[ficino]

I do hope to see your own reasons, not linguistic ones, for upholding the scholarly position.

Hi maryhelena, I am trying to organize my thoughts about reasons for upholding the standard scholarly view of Slavonic Josephus.

As a matter of method, I disagree about linguistic ones. I think "lower" stages of criticism must undergird attempts at doing criticism at "higher" stages.

Anyway, as to content, here is one item. SlaJos, corresponding to Josephus' BJ 1.110, p. 123 of L&L, says that the Pharisees "pretended to be the most magnanimous of all and law-abiding." This sentence in Josephus' Greek does not have this pejorative slant, merely saying the Pharisees had the reputation (δοκοῦν) of excelling in observances of religion, etc. The NT of course does have a pejorative view of Pharisees and accuses them of making a show and of hypocrisy. So in this sentence it looks as though SlaJos is influenced by the NT and is not translating what Josephus wrote. We can suggest that perhaps the pejorative language appeared in an earlier version of Josephus' BJ, but that would be an ad hoc assumption.

While I mull over more passages, I'd like to ask: have you gone over Meščerskij's discussion of Josippon and its relation to Slavonic Josephus? There is a lot there that is pertinent. section XIV starting on p. 84 of L&L. It's linguistic more than focusing on story development!

[Clive]

Except the gospel views of pharisees is definitely very slanted - the Pharisees were actually quite a reasonable bunch.

The Pharisees (Hebrew: Perushim) emerged as a distinct group shortly after the Maccabean revolt, about 165–160 bce; they were, it is generally believed, spiritual descendants of the Hasideans. The Pharisees emerged as a party of laymen and scribes in contradistinction to the Sadducees—i.e., the party of the high priesthood that had traditionally provided the sole leadership of the Jewish people. The basic difference that led to the split between the Pharisees and the Sadducees lay in their respective attitudes toward the Torah (the first five books of the Bible) and the problem of finding in it answers to questions and bases for decisions about contemporary legal and religious matters arising under circumstances far different from those of the time of Moses. In their response to this problem, the Sadducees, on the one hand, refused to accept any precept as binding unless it was based directly on the Torah—i.e., the Written Law. The Pharisees, on the other hand, believed that the Law that God gave to Moses was twofold, consisting of the Written Law and the Oral Law—i.e., the teachings of the prophets and the oral traditions of the Jewish people. Whereas the priestly Sadducees taught that the written Torah was the only source of revelation, the Pharisees admitted the principle of evolution in the Law: men must use their reason in interpreting the Torah and applying it to contemporary problems.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/top ... 9/Pharisee

[maryhelena]

I do hope to see your own reasons, not linguistic ones, for upholding the scholarly position.

Hi maryhelena, I am trying to organize my thoughts about reasons for upholding the standard scholarly view of Slavonic Josephus.

As a matter of method, I disagree about linguistic ones. I think "lower" stages of criticism must undergird attempts at doing criticism at "higher" stages.

Anyway, as to content, here is one item. SlaJos, corresponding to Josephus' BJ 1.110, p. 123 of L&L, says that the Pharisees "pretended to be the most magnanimous of all and law-abiding." This sentence in Josephus' Greek does not have this pejorative slant, merely saying the Pharisees had the reputation (δοκοῦν) of excelling in observances of religion, etc. The NT of course does have a pejorative view of Pharisees and accuses them of making a show and of hypocrisy. So in this sentence it looks as though SlaJos is influenced by the NT and is not translating what Josephus wrote. We can suggest that perhaps the pejorative language appeared in an earlier version of Josephus' BJ, but that would be an ad hoc assumption.

So ....date an early version of gMatthew, a version without the Archelaus story, prior to the version of War that had the SJ material. Actually, if one removes the reference to Archelaus in gMatthew (viewing it as an update...) the gMatthew birth narrative can be read to be early in the reign of Herod - as in SJ. Once the Archelaus story was added to gMatthew then the SJ birth narrative was out of date and hence could be discarded - as it is in our present version of War. That would put the update of Archelaus in gMatthew as between an earlier War (with the SL material) and the version of War that we now have.

ficino, working from a positive approach to the SL material i.e. viewing it as relevant to the gospel story) then new avenues for research arise. Rejecting the SL material as of no consequence to the developing gospel story - and one closes a door that might well lead to somewhere worthwhile....

While I mull over more passages, I'd like to ask: have you gone over Meščerskij's discussion of Josippon and its relation to Slavonic Josephus? There is a lot there that is pertinent. section XIV starting on p. 84 of L&L. It's linguistic more than focusing on story development!

Well, I read some of it and skipped more of it...got bored. That ancient writers took stories from here there and everywhere and put their own twist on them - big deal! The interest in the SL material is it's connection to the gospel story, How that material got where it did; was translated and translated again by whoever - is a job for scholars to unravel. My interest is the story that is reflected in that material. Sure, 'thank you' to the scholars for doing their job - now - let others attempt to find the relevance of that material to the gospel story. Because it is that story, the gospel story, a story that continues to dominate the lives of millions of people - hence affects the very societies we live in - and we want better than what we have got....

[ficino]

So ....date an early version of gMatthew, a version without the Archelaus story, prior to the version of War that had the SJ material. Actually, if one removes the reference to Archelaus in gMatthew (viewing it as an update...) the gMatthew birth narrative can be read to be early in the reign of Herod - as in SJ. Once the Archelaus story was added to gMatthew then the SJ birth narrative was out of date and hence could be discarded - as it is in our present version of War. That would put the update of Archelaus in gMatthew as between an earlier War (with the SL material) and the version of War that we now have.

I think the above labors from too many ad hoc assumptions about unevidenced texts.

ficino, working from a positive approach to the SL material i.e. viewing it as relevant to the gospel story) then new avenues for research arise. Rejecting the SL material as of no consequence to the developing gospel story - and one closes a door that might well lead to somewhere worthwhile....

Might... but also might be a false lead. The following analogy is limited, having just popped into my head, but what you're trying to do sounds a bit like an art historian who says that Fernand Léger's cubist paintings are later developments of the artistic line at work in his more figurative paintings, which must be earlier. When in fact Léger departed from cubism into more popular, figurative works in his later period.

Anyway, another example, discussed by Meščerskij, are SlaJos' designations of the Romans as "Latins" and "Italians," nomenclature that does not appear in Josephus but that would fit a medieval context. That might be innocent enough, but SlaJos goes on to describe the Latins very negatively. Josephus does not do that! Especially describing the Romans as "Solomon's leeches" bespeaks a mentality foreign to that of Josephus. cf. p. 32 in L&L.

You find it unbelievable that a Christian could have written some of the material in the "additions." I find it unbelievable that Josephus could have written any of them as we have them. E.g.

1. Egregious to my mind is the story of the Temple inscription about Jesus, corresponding to BJ 5.194: "And above these inscriptions there was a fourth, in the same characters (as the other three), which proclaimed Jesus 'king who did not reign, crucified by the Jews since he preached the destruction of the city and the ruin of the Temple.'" (I translate Ramelli's Italian)

Here you have Jesus named, not just an anonymous wonder worker.
Josephus' readership is supposed to believe this? Or, even if we suppose that an Aramaic version first circulated in the East, we are supposed to believe that Jos. is sending this detail out to Jews in Parthia/Babylon? And again, that they're supposed to believe this?
On the other hand, the technique of sticking a supposed inscription into a story occurs elsewhere as documented by Meščerskij.

2. In the story of the portents that followed the crucifixion, SlaJos has (in ): "5. Some then assert that he is risen; but others, that he has been stolen by his friends. 6. I, however, do not know which speak more correctly.
7. For a dead man cannot rise of himself—though possibly with the help of another righteous man; unless it (lit. he) will be an angel or another of the heavenly authorities, or God himself appears as a man and accomplishes what he will,—both walks with men and falls, and lies down and rises up, as it is according to his will.
8. But others said that it was not possible to steal him, because they had put guards all round his grave,—thirty Romans, but a thousand Jews."
I do not believe that Josephus wrote something as dumb as to point out that a dead man cannot rise of himself, or the blather that follows in 7. I also don't believe Josephus wrote that 1000 Jews were guarding the body. This is clearly for a different audience than Josephus' and serves different purposes than his.

3. The stylised, long speeches in the story of Herod and the Persians -- for the text of which I thank you! -- are not in Josephus' idiom. They are the stuff of romance/fairy tale. In gMat, Herod orders the killing of two-year-olds and under in Bethlehem and its environs. In SlaJos, he orders the slaughter to encompass all of Judaea.
From the standpoint of story development, it's pretty obvious that what we find in SlaJos is an imaginative embellishment of gMat and other stuff. The story has grown in the telling.

I'll stop here.

Maryhelena, I note that you have been using the term, "the Josephan writer." I'm not sure what work is being done in your hypothetical structure by this construct, rather than just "Josephus." I am leery of hypotheses that require us to assume unevidenced entities unless we really can't account for our data without those assumptions. So far your construction seems to me a lot less parsimonious than the standard one. I agree with cienfuegos on this.

Warmly, f

[maryhelena]

So ....date an early version of gMatthew, a version without the Archelaus story, prior to the version of War that had the SJ material. Actually, if one removes the reference to Archelaus in gMatthew (viewing it as an update...) the gMatthew birth narrative can be read to be early in the reign of Herod - as in SJ. Once the Archelaus story was added to gMatthew then the SJ birth narrative was out of date and hence could be discarded - as it is in our present version of War. That would put the update of Archelaus in gMatthew as between an earlier War (with the SL material) and the version of War that we now have.

I think the above labors from too many ad hoc assumptions about unevidenced texts.

Unevidenced texts? The texts referenced above are not 'evidenced'? Whatever the source of the material in the SJ - it's there, we have it.....'ad hoc assumptions'? That I suggested that one take out the Archelaus story from gMatthew and one then has a birth narrative that can be placed early in the reign of Herod I. ....Just one little change in gMatthew and we have a birth narrative that can be harmonized with the birth narrative in SJ - and you consider this ad hoc?

ficino, working from a positive approach to the SL material i.e. viewing it as relevant to the gospel story) then new avenues for research arise. Rejecting the SL material as of no consequence to the developing gospel story - and one closes a door that might well lead to somewhere worthwhile....

Might... but also might be a false lead. The following analogy is limited, having just popped into my head, but what you're trying to do sounds a bit like an art historian who says that Fernand Léger's cubist paintings are later developments of the artistic line at work in his more figurative paintings, which must be earlier. When in fact Léger departed from cubism into more popular, figurative works in his later period.

Anyway, another example, discussed by Meščerskij, are SlaJos' designations of the Romans as "Latins" and "Italians," nomenclature that does not appear in Josephus but that would fit a medieval context. That might be innocent enough, but SlaJos goes on to describe the Latins very negatively. Josephus does not do that! Especially describing the Romans as "Solomon's leeches" bespeaks a mentality foreign to that of Josephus. cf. p. 32 in L&L.

finco, it's the SJ material that relates to the gospel story that is relevant. What Russian writers added to other parts of the SJ is one thing - its' quite another thing to say they wrote the material that relates to the gospel story. That would be a similar argument that many make regarding the TF - Eusebius interpolated this passage - therefore - the passage can be discarded as having any value regarding the historicist/ahistoricist debate.

You find it unbelievable that a Christian could have written some of the material in the "additions." I find it unbelievable that Josephus could have written any of them as we have them. E.g.

I find it unbelievable that a Christian, having the NT gospels in front of him, could write the material that is in SJ. ficino, I've never said that Josephus wrote the gospel related material in SJ. I don't believe Josephus is the originator of this story. That Josephus recorded material that has it's source elsewhere is, nevertheless, of great interest.

1. Egregious to my mind is the story of the Temple inscription about Jesus, corresponding to BJ 5.194: "And above these inscriptions there was a fourth, in the same characters (as the other three), which proclaimed Jesus 'king who did not reign, crucified by the Jews since he preached the destruction of the city and the ruin of the Temple.'" (I translate Ramelli's Italian)

Here you have Jesus named, not just an anonymous wonder worker.

Indeed, the SJ material ends up naming the crucified wonder-doer as Jesus. The story developed slowly....we have to get to gMatthew to have the baby Jesus named at birth....

Josephus' readership is supposed to believe this? Or, even if we suppose that an Aramaic version first circulated in the East, we are supposed to believe that Jos. is sending this detail out to Jews in Parthia/Babylon? And again, that they're supposed to believe this?
On the other hand, the technique of sticking a supposed inscription into a story occurs elsewhere as documented by Meščerskij.

Believe what? That Josephus recorded a story about Pilate having a man crucified and this man had an inscription over the cross? Millions believe it to this day...and the TF has been broadcasting the story for coming on 2000 years....

2. In the story of the portents that followed the crucifixion, SlaJos has (in ): "5. Some then assert that he is risen; but others, that he has been stolen by his friends. 6. I, however, do not know which speak more correctly.
7. For a dead man cannot rise of himself—though possibly with the help of another righteous man; unless it (lit. he) will be an angel or another of the heavenly authorities, or God himself appears as a man and accomplishes what he will,—both walks with men and falls, and lies down and rises up, as it is according to his will.
8. But others said that it was not possible to steal him, because they had put guards all round his grave,—thirty Romans, but a thousand Jews."
I do not believe that Josephus wrote something as dumb as to point out that a dead man cannot rise of himself, or the blather that follows in 7. I also don't believe Josephus wrote that 1000 Jews were guarding the body. This is clearly for a different audience than Josephus' and serves different purposes than his.

Josephus recorded a story - as he has done with the TF.

3. The stylised, long speeches in the story of Herod and the Persians -- for the text of which I thank you! -- are not in Josephus' idiom. They are the stuff of romance/fairy tale. In gMat, Herod orders the killing of two-year-olds and under in Bethlehem and its environs. In SlaJos, he orders the slaughter to encompass all of Judaea.
From the standpoint of story development, it's pretty obvious that what we find in SlaJos is an imaginative embellishment of gMat and other stuff. The story has grown in the telling.

Indeed the story has grown in the telling - the point of issue is where did the story start. And, of course, re the gospels in the NT, that story did not only develop with lots of embellishments - it also moved its timeline from Herod to Quirinius. Necessitating the ditching of outdated material related to a a birth narrative early in the reign of Herod. Putting the Archelaus story in gMatthew moved the story to the end of Herod's rule. Putting Quirinius in gLuke moved the story well away from any connection with Herod I - to a time when no descendent of Herod ruled in Judea.

l'll stop here.

Maryhelena, I note that you have been using the term, "the Josephan writer." I'm not sure what work is being done in your hypothetical structure by this construct, rather than just "Josephus." I am leery of hypotheses that require us to assume unevidenced entities unless we really can't account for our data without those assumptions. So far your construction seems to me a lot less parsimonious than the standard one. I agree with cienfuegos on this.

Warmly, f

OK - rather than cause confusion - I'll state what Josephan work I refer to.....

[outhouse]

Is the wonder-doer story, and birth narrative, that are now in Slavonic Josephus that master-copy?

No.

Slavonic Josephus is a joke with no credibility as existing in that time period.


What I got out of the OP and your first link was "anacreonic process" and I agree as they were all compilations.

[outhouse]

the Pharisees were actually quite a reasonable bunch.

Any chance you could substantiate that with a credible modern link?

[ficino]

1. Egregious to my mind is the story of the Temple inscription about Jesus, corresponding to BJ 5.194: "And above these inscriptions there was a fourth, in the same characters (as the other three), which proclaimed Jesus 'king who did not reign, crucified by the Jews since he preached the destruction of the city and the ruin of the Temple.'" (I translate Ramelli's Italian)

....

Josephus' readership is supposed to believe this? Or, even if we suppose that an Aramaic version first circulated in the East, we are supposed to believe that Jos. is sending this detail out to Jews in Parthia/Babylon? And again, that they're supposed to believe this?
On the other hand, the technique of sticking a supposed inscription into a story occurs elsewhere as documented by Meščerskij.

Believe what? That Josephus recorded a story about Pilate having a man crucified and this man had an inscription over the cross? Millions believe it to this day...and the TF has been broadcasting the story for coming on 2000 years....

Believe that there was an inscription carved over the gate of the Temple denouncing Jesus by name as failed King/pretender.