Imperative Humility with the Slavonic Josephus gives the Best Case for a Historical Jesus

[Giuseppe]

What I like in this Samuel Zinner's interview is that he seems to have abandoned or placed in background his confidence on the Greek Testimonium Flavianum, since he says (If I am correct) that the original Semitic core of the Slavonic Testimonium precedes temporally the same hypothetical Greek TF.

As an eager Mythicist, I think that all the my (more than justified) enthusiasm for the Christ Myth Theory can't overcome the humility that is required in approaching the Slavonic Testimonium. Hence, ceteris paribus, that humility is so morally imperative in dealing with a such text that we can't move beyond an Agnostic Position.

There would be even more than that, indeed: Zinner points out the fact that also other ancient religious texts from Josephus's era were translated in Slavonic, and about them we are sure, via independent evidence, that the translation happened (i.e. that the original existed really at the time of Josephus). It would be not justified to accept their preservation in the Slavonic language and not the preservation of some original bits about Jesus and John the Baptizer as seditious rebels, violent Sign Prophets preaching military violence against the Romans.

[Giuseppe]

According to Samuel Zinner, none Christian scribe could have written the following passages:

• 
  
  And many souls became wavering, supposing that thereby the Jewish tribes would set themselves free from the Roman hands.
  
  ...
  
  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.
  
  

• In addition: the reluctance by the Christian scribe to specify that this rebel was called "Jesus".

• In addition: the too-much-evident apology in the insistence on what Jesus was not:
  
  
  And when he had instituted a trial concerning him, he perceived that he is a doer of good, but not an evildoer, nor a revolutionary, nor one who aimed at power, and set him free.
  
  

No need of reconstructing the original version. What is sufficient are only the three items above:

• (1) positive evidence of rebellion;

• (2) reluctance to name the rebel as "Jesus";

• (3) apology in insistent denials.

The first point (1) is expanded by identical clues of rebellion in the Baptist Passage in both Greek Josephus and Slavonic Josephus.

[Giuseppe]

The idea that the claims to the throne are attributed not directly to Jesus but to the his followers is a Christian idea born in Christian minds:


John 6:15:

When Jesus therefore perceived that they would come and take Him by force to make Him a king, He departed again onto a mountain alone.

*Ev 24:21:

But we trusted that it had been he which should have redeemed Israel

Are there other examples in Josephus of a Sign Prophet who was proclaimed king apparently not by his own initiative but by popular impulse?

[Giuseppe]

The initiative is attributed to the Samaritan Impostor, not to his own followers:

But the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place,

The initiative is attributed to Theudas, not to his own followers:

During the period when Fadus was procurator of Judaea, a certain impostor named Theudas persuaded the majority of the masses to take up their possessions and to follow him to the Jordan River. He stated that he was a prophet and that at his command the river would be parted and would provide them an easy passage. And many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt: but sent a troop of horsemen out against them. Who falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem. This was what befel the Jews in the time of Cuspius Fadus’s government.

(Ant. 20.97-99)


The initiative is attributed to the unnamed figures under Felix, not to their own followers:
.

There was also another body of wicked men [other than the Sicarii, i.e., daggermen] gotten together, not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions, which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of Divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty. But Felix thought this procedure was to be the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen both armed, who destroyed a great number of them.

(War 2.258-60)

These works, that were done by the robbers, filled the city with all sorts of impiety. And now these impostors and deceivers persuaded the multitude to follow them into the wilderness, and pretended that they would exhibit manifest wonders and signs, that should be performed by the providence of God. And many that were prevailed on by them suffered the punishments of their folly; for Felix brought them back, and then punished them.

(Ant. 20.167-168)

The initiative is attributed to the unnamed "Egyptian", not to his own followers:

But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also, and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him. But Felix prevented his attempt, and met him with his Roman soldiers, while all the people assisted him in his attack upon them, insomuch that when it came to a battle, the Egyptian ran away, with a few others, while the greatest part of those that were with him were either destroyed or taken alive; but the rest of the multitude were dispersed every one to their own homes, and there concealed themselves.

(War 2.261-263)

The initiative is attributed to the unnamed figure under Festus, not to his own followers:

So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also.

(Ant. 20.188)

That is all.

It is curious that Dave Allen never raises this crucial difference, when he compares Jesus with the other Sign Prophets.

[Giuseppe]

Surprisingly, an exception is represented by Simon of Perea, since the initiative is attributed in the same time both to him and his own followers :

There was also Simon, who had been a slave of king Herod, but in other respects a comely person, of a tall and robust body; he was one that was much superior to others of his order, and had had great things committed to his care. This man was elevated at the disorderly state of things, and was so bold as to put a diadem on his head, while a certain number of the people stood by him, and by them he was declared to be a king, and he thought himself more worthy of that dignity than any one else.
He burnt down the royal palace at Jericho, and plundered what was left in it. He also set fire to many other of the king's houses in several places of the country, utterly destroyed them, and permitted those that were with him to take what was left in them for a prey. He would have done greater things, but care was taken to repress him immediately. [The commander of Herod's infantry] Gratus joined himself to some Roman soldiers, took the forces he had with him, and met Simon. And after a great and a long fight, no small part of those that had come from Peraea (a disordered body of men, fighting rather in a bold than in a skillful manner) were destroyed. Although Simon had saved himself by flying away through a certain valley, Gratus overtook him, and cut off his head.

Hence the idea that the initiative (to brandish royal attributes) comes apparently from the followers is not a Christian exception. Simon of Perea is a good confutation of the my objection.

[Giuseppe]

There is more than an exception: also in the case of Athronges and his brothers the initiative is attributed to their own followers, not directly to themselves:

Athronges, a person neither eminent by the dignity of his progenitors, nor for any great wealth he possessed. For he had been a mere shepherd, not known by anybody. But because he was a tall man, and excelled others in the strength of his hands, he was so bold as to set up for king. This man thought it so sweet a thing to do more than ordinary injuries to others, that, although he risked his life, he did not much care if he lost it in so great a design.
He had four brothers, who were tall men themselves, and were believed to be superior to others in the strength of their hands, and thereby were encouraged to aim at great things, and thought that strength of theirs would support them in retaining the kingdom. Each of these ruled over a band of men of their own (for those that got together to them were very numerous). They were every one of them also commanders; but when they came to fight, they were subordinate to him, and fought for him. After he had put a diadem about his head, he assembled a council to debate about what things should be done, and all things were done according to his pleasure. So, this man retained his power a great while; he was also called king, and had nothing to hinder him from doing what he pleased.

It was a common Josephian tropos, the idea that the title of king was given to the rebel by the his own followers. The initiative is apparently their own, not of the leader.

Hence the idea that the initiative (to brandish royal attributes) comes apparently from the followers ceases definitely to be a Christian exception. Also Athronges is a good confutation of the my objection.

[Giuseppe]

The original Slavonic also does not resist calling anyone Jesus.

in the same time, it would be reluctant to call him "Jesus" in all the cases. At any case, it is not a decisive point for Zinner. What seems to be decisive according to Zinner is the passage about the followers inviting Jesus to proclaim himself a king.

Athronges and Simon of Perea examples you list basically take the bite out of Zinner's argumentation.

are you sure? Athronges and Simon of Perea are the two only examples in Josephus of rebels being called "king" by their own followers. In other terms, people invited Simon of Berea to proclaim himself a king. Officially, the initiative (to call him a king) started among the followers.

The Gospels (and the interpolator of the Slavonic Josephus) add only that Jesus rejected the title of king given to him by the people.

Hence how do you deal with this objection? The objection is that also Josephus described twice the equivalent of people who "would come and take Him by force to make Him a king". Corollary: it would be not a Christian idea (the fact that people invite X to proclaim himself a king).

[Giuseppe]

The Slavonic says Jesus resisted being named king, and resisted calls to arms. The Gospel of John says Jesus resisted being called king.

surely the resistance to be named king is a Christian interpolation. The invitation to be named king by his own followers is something that could be written by Josephus (as the examples of Athronges and Simon of Berea show) or by a Christian interpolator (as John 6:15 shows). Fifty-fifty. Hence what the conclusion has to be? Is there a way to overcome the fifty-fifty in a direction or in an other?

ADDENDA: According to Dave Allen, what moves the balance is the added detail of the three "no" by the Christian interpolator. In John 6:15 a similar insistence is not found: only one "no" was sufficient. The three "no" would show that the interpolator was denying a previous source where the accusations were in the positive sense.

[maryhelena]

The original Slavonic also does not resist calling anyone Jesus. Jesus is mentioned by name multiple times throughout the original edition, and in this specific section is mentioned just further down.

The Slavonic Josephus does not name the wonder-doer/worker of miracles......

Chapter IX.III = 174. The Slavonic contains a lengthy account of the ministry
of a man who worked miracles, whose deeds were divine (not referred to by
name). The passage fits into an account of Pilate’s governorship. The Jewish
leaders informed Pilate of the wonderworker’s doings from an understandable
fear of the Romans. Pilate sent for the wonderworker but released him when
he realized that he was not a rebel, and besides, he had cured Pilate’s wife. The
lawyers then gave Pilate thirty talents to kill the wonderworker, Pilate gave his
permission, and they crucified the wonderworker. This account diverges in
many points from the canonical Gospel accounts of these events.

here

footnote:
$ 174e-' further in Vil and A an addition: If Josephus the Jew called him wonder-worker and the works be performed divine and super-human, we. orthodox and Christian people, firmly informed by the holy prophets and the divine apostles and the most worthy historians, call him Jesus Christ, our true Lord, just as the great and God-speaking evangelists say, eye-witnesses of the true word, which truly was. Further. Luke 23:1-I5.

Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison. Page 262
H. Leeming (Editor), K. Leeming (Editor)

The Slavonic Josephus redactor did not deem it appropriate to change, to interpolate, the name 'Jesus' into the text of the wonder-doer story. Seems to me that it's the supporters of a whole cloth TF that would have motive to
attempt to discredit the Slavonic Josephus text.

It is only when later redactors of the Slavonic went through and de-Christianized everything that they began omitting anything overtly Christian (see Olson's post here: viewtopic.php?t=11298). We know that they were de-Christianizing the text because they were wanting to make sure everything looked like Josephus more realistically, so they also went through and ommitted any mention of Josephus by name in the third person.

Interpolation, deletions - heaven help us all - deal with what is before us in the Slavonic Josephus....

we know for a fact the Slavonic has a gospel in front of them because of the reference to the 30 talents of silver.

Really - so the Slavonic Josephus redactor changed the gospel story i.e. the chief priests give Judas the 30 pieces of silver - while the Slavonic has the 'lawyers' giving Pilate the 30 pieces of silver. A far more serious charge it being against a Roman official.

The Slavonic says Jesus resisted being named king, and resisted calls to arms.

It says no such thing - it says the 'wonder worker' resisted the call to fight the Romans.

And many of the people followed
and listened to his teaching.
And many souls were aroused,
thinking that by him the Jewish tribes would
free themselves from the hands of the Romans.
But it was his habit rather to remain in front
of the city on the Mount of Olives,
and there he also (freely)gave cures to people.
And there 150 servants
and a multitude of people joined him,
seeing his power (and)
how by word he did everything he wished.
They bade him enter the city,
kill – the Roman troops – and Pilate
and reign over –these-.
But he did not care (to do so)
Later, when news of this came
to the Jewish leaders,
they assembled –to the chief priests – and said,
“We are powerless and (too)weak
to oppose the Romans, like a –slackened- bow.
Let us go and inform Pilate what we have heard;
and we shall be free of anxiety;
if at some time he shall hear (of this) from others,
we shall be deprived of (our) property;
ourselves slaughtered and (our)children exiled”.
And they went and informed Pilate.
And he sent and killed many of the people
and brought in that wonder worker
After inquiring about him (Pilate) understood
that he was a doer of good, not of evil,
(and) not a rebel nor one –desirous of –kings
and he released him.
For he had cured his wife who was dying.
And he went to the usual –places – and
performed his usual deeds.
And (once)again,
as more people gathered around him,
he became renowned for his works
more than all (others).
<Again>the lawyers were struck with envy
<against him>.
And they gave 30 talents to Pilate
that –they- should kill him.
And he took (it) and gave them liberty
to carry out their wishes themselves.
<And they sought out a suitable time to kill him.
For they had given Pilate 30 talents earlier,
that he should give Jesus up to them>
“And they – crucified him
against (the) ancestral law.
<and they greatly reviled him.

Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison
H. Leeming (Editor), K. Leeming (Editor)

============

If one wants to consider Hasmonean/Jewish history..................

Antigonus II Mattathias
Josephus states that Mark Antony beheaded Antigonus (Antiquities, XV 1:2 (8–9). Roman historian Cassius Dio says that he was crucified and records in his Roman History: "These people [the Jews] Antony entrusted to a certain Herod to govern; but Antigonus he bound to a cross and scourged, a punishment no other king had suffered at the hands of the Romans, and so slew him."[5] In his Life of Antony, Plutarch claims that Antony had Antigonus beheaded, "the first example of that punishment being inflicted on a king."[6]

Herod was afraid lest Antigonus should be kept in prison [only] by Antony, and that when he was carried to Rome by him, he might get his cause to be heard by the senate, and might demonstrate, as he was himself of the royal blood, and Herod but a private man, that therefore it belonged to his sons however to have the kingdom, on account of the family they were of, in case he had himself offended the Romans by what he had done. Out of Herod's fear of this it was that he, by giving Antony a great deal of money, endeavoured to persuade him to have Antigonus slain. Antiquities: Book 14 ch.16

The Slavonic Josephus has the Roman official receiving the 30 pieces of silver. Indicating that it's that story, the wonder-doer story that is earlier than the Antiquities TF - and earlier than the Judas gospel story. The Jesus story was never static - from Matthew to Luke the storyline developed and from the Yeshu story to the wonder-doer story - to the Jesus story.

[maryhelena]

It literally names him in the quote you gave:

And they went and informed Pilate.
And he sent and killed many of the people
and brought in that wonder worker
"And they sought out a suitable time to kill him.
For they had given Pilate 30 talents earlier,
that he should give Jesus up to them"
----
And they gave 30 talents to Pilate
that –they- should kill him.
And he took (it) and gave them liberty
to carry out their wishes themselves.
<And they sought out a suitable time to kill him.


For they had given Pilate 30 talents earlier,
that he should give Jesus up to them>
“And they – crucified him
against (the) ancestral law.
<and they greatly reviled him.

footnote:
$ 174e-' further in Vil and A an addition: If Josephus the Jew called him wonder-worker and the works be performed divine and super-human, we. orthodox and Christian people, firmly informed by the holy prophets and the divine apostles and the most worthy historians, call him Jesus Christ, our true Lord, just as the great and God-speaking evangelists say, eye-witnesses of the true word, which truly was. Further. Luke 23:1-I5.

Josephus' Jewish War and Its Slavonic Version: A Synoptic Comparison. Page 262
H. Leeming (Editor), K. Leeming (Editor)

The footnote indicates that 'Jesus' was the opinion of a redactor not the received text of the wonder-doer. It would make no sense whatsoever for a redactor to mention that it is he, a Christian, that labeled the wonder-doer 'Jesus' - if the, to him, Josephan text already had 'Jesus' in the text. As mentioned by Kate Lemming - the Chapter IX.III = 174. The Slavonic contains a lengthy account of the ministry of a man who worked miracles, whose deeds were divine (not referred to by name).

Also check the footnotes the redactor removed references to Jesus, including one where it also mentions Josephus by name. The reason for doing so was a later redactor of the Slavonic wanted to make the text look more like an authentic Jewish work, so he went around deleting anything he thought was too overtly Christian. Hence, Jesus' name occasionally gets removed, along with several other elements.

viewtopic.php?t=11298

The redactor removed references to Jesus ? - the redactor is saying that the wonder-doer is, to him, Jesus.

I'm sure the Slavonic Josephus, along with all gospel related stories, have had their fair share of 'updates' and redactor opinions - but I really don't think your argument has any merit when contrasted with the scholars who have worked and published on this material. The wonder-doer/the miracle worker - is not named in the Slavonic Josephus text. It is the Slavonic Josephus redactor who names the wonder-doer/miracle worker as Jesus - and he very plainly tells his readers that he did so.