This is the only rational evidence that can be inferred from Slavonic Josephus:
If Jesus was not an obscure person, then, as some who believe in his historicity have rightly perceived, the manner of his execution by a Roman governor prove that he was put to death as a political agitator; in which case he takes his place by the side of Judas the Galilean, the "Egyptian false prophet," and Theudas "the magician," and there is no valid reason why Josephus, who mentions them, should not have mentioned him. The interpolator of the Slavonic Josephus appears to have appreciated this aspect of the matter.
(Louis Gordon Rylands, The Beginning of Gnostic Christianity, p. 149, my bold)
Sic et simpliciter:
The Slavonic Josephus is evidence against any mention of Jesus by Josephus.
To derive from the Slavonic the exact contrary of the his immediate and more direct implication is therefore absurd and totally unworthy of a serious scholar.
DCHindley wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2014 6:57 pm
You cannot ask for a more controversial translation of Josephus' War than the Slavonic one. It is actually a virtual re-write of War by the Slavonic translator, removing what was not of interest to him (mainly matters specific to Judaism) and retaining and supplementing what was of interest to him (military tactics and political intrigues).
However, where he does deal with matters such as John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, who are not in the Greek version of War at all so they must have been part of his additions, he provides an incredibly vivid account that is charged with political intrigues and revolutionary fervor! Wow!
Because of these vivid sections not found in the received copies of War, some scholars, particularly Robert Eisler in the early 1930s, proposed that the translator had access to an Aramaic account of The Capture of Jerusalem that Josephus says he wrote for the benefit of the Jews of Northern Mesopotamia immediately after the War (just after 70 CE), and which served as the basis of the Greek War.
Supposedly this idea has been "obviated" by later critics, particularly Leeming & Leeming's English edition, which suggests that the additional details are from the translator's own experiences at war and politics in an age when Slavic, Greek, a revival of interest in matters Jewish in the region around Kiev (now the Ukraine), and Islamic forces were all converging. I am not quite so sure everything has been put neatly to bed, though.
DCH
What does he mean when he concludes:
I am not quite so sure everything has been put neatly to bed, though.
A possibility that Eisler and Nodet have seen right ?
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Sun Oct 31, 2021 9:11 pm
When the conclusion (= Josephus would have attested that Jesus healed the Pilate's wife, or for Josephus the meaning of "Christ" was unknown just as it was for Tacitus) is clearly too much false, then the premises are equally falsified in the same degree. This amounts to a confutation.
So you are not interested in examining or responding to his argument. Only to his conclusion. This is not right, Giuseppe. I am sure you would acknowledge the injustice if someone decided to treat an argument for mythicism the same way.
neilgodfrey wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 2:42 amThis is not right, Giuseppe. I am sure you would acknowledge the injustice if someone decided to treat an argument for mythicism the same way.
I may be wrong, indeed. The fact is that what Nodet has said about the Slavonic TF has so troubled me that my first reaction has been so scandalized.
The third part of the Slavonic Testimonium, which has the Jesus' name and punishment by "the Jews" written at one of the temple gates is so improbable as to be ridiculuous.
(my bold)
Nodet thinks that Hegesippus read from the hypothetical vorlage of the Slavonic Josephus the caustic reference, on the mouth of the killers of James the Just, to the "gate of Jesus".
But the context in Hegesippus's story about the death of James the Just appears to assume that the "gate of Jesus" is a celestial apparition.
Anything's possible. Gotta watch that Hindley fellow.
The passages are so unique and, well, odd, but do they point to Josephus' Aramaic language "Capture of the the City (of Jerusalem)?"'
I summarized the principal additions and omissions from Kirsopp Lake's translation a while ago, but I do not recall whether I placed it online. He derived his information from Eisler, who had not yet published his 2nd German volume, so this is not all of it.
IIUC, this volume has been released into the public domain (despite date of publication after 1926).
DCH
Giuseppe wrote: ↑Mon Nov 01, 2021 2:02 am
Interesting this DCHindley's point:
DCHindley wrote: ↑Thu May 29, 2014 6:57 pm
You cannot ask for a more controversial translation of Josephus' War than the Slavonic one. It is actually a virtual re-write of War by the Slavonic translator, removing what was not of interest to him (mainly matters specific to Judaism) and retaining and supplementing what was of interest to him (military tactics and political intrigues).
However, where he does deal with matters such as John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, who are not in the Greek version of War at all so they must have been part of his additions, he provides an incredibly vivid account that is charged with political intrigues and revolutionary fervor! Wow!
Because of these vivid sections not found in the received copies of War, some scholars, particularly Robert Eisler in the early 1930s, proposed that the translator had access to an Aramaic account of The Capture of Jerusalem that Josephus says he wrote for the benefit of the Jews of Northern Mesopotamia immediately after the War (just after 70 CE), and which served as the basis of the Greek War.
Supposedly this idea has been "obviated" by later critics, particularly Leeming & Leeming's English edition, which suggests that the additional details are from the translator's own experiences at war and politics in an age when Slavic, Greek, a revival of interest in matters Jewish in the region around Kiev (now the Ukraine), and Islamic forces were all converging. I am not quite so sure everything has been put neatly to bed, though.
DCH
What does he mean when he concludes:
I am not quite so sure everything has been put neatly to bed, though.
A possibility that Eisler and Nodet have seen right ?
I note that Daniel Unterbrink thinks that the Slavonic preserves original traces of Josephus (even if some portions are clearly christianized) but he thinks that these traces could be applied by the original author to Judas the Galilean and not to Jesus (as someone distinct from Judas the Galilean).
Even if one considers the Slavonic as (still) worthy of inquiry, one is justified to distinguish the Christian Jesus from any other Josephian character only if he/she believes that the Testimonium Flavianum is at least partially authentic.
