the_cave

IMO any reference to the 20 books of Antiquities by a patristic author, without direct evidence that they'd read it, suggests only that they knew offhandedly there was a work by Josephus with 20 books in it. This could have been learned simply by reading other patristic authors who made note of it.

I am wondering that too, though I don't think he betrays any notice of any unique features of the SJ.

I believe it's the Vossianus gr. F 72, as noted on Roger's page:

http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/ma...sephus_all.htm

There's a facsimile of it in Eisler.

Back Again

Thanks Roger.

I particularly like that Constantine was the hero for using his "muscle" to uncover the true texts that had been hidden away.

By Hebrew Torah you are talking about what is preserved in the extant Masoretic texts? I'm having trouble understanding the parallel lineages of manuscripts between the translation of the LXX and the 7th century Masoretes. There seem to be a wide range of opinions. I'm still reading on the topic but comments are welcome. Agapius was writing in the 10th century so I'm not sure his opinions are valid historically other than to elucidate what was generally accepted in the 10th century.

the_cave

Forgot to add that I believe there are other manuscripts that attach the TF to BJ--Eisler mentions them, and I'm pretty sure they're on Pearse's list. I seem to recall three of them. The difference is that they generally tack it on to the end (one may be at the beginning)--but the Vossianus places it in the middle of Book II. Don't get too excited, though--it's clearly been inserted, and also contains a quotation from Discourse to the Greeks Concerning Hades. Eisler has his usual wild theories as to why. (Its location also has nothing to do with the location of the Slavonic Tesimonium, BTW.)

Roger Pearse

Not me. Those are the words Agapius uses.

I don't think he goes past the idea of "this is what the Jews are using". NB: he's writing in the 10th century, which I vaguely think is the date of our earliest Masoretic mss? (not my field).

We'd need to see more than one author to conclude what was generally accepted, of course.

Roger Pearse

Good point. Antiquities may have been a rare work even in Greek, judging from the number of people quoting from it.

We must also remember Agapius is writing in Arabic. He is using Syriac sources, and knows Syriac. Not sure whether he knows Greek.

PhilosopherJay

Hi The Cave,

I think the insertion of the TF in different manuscripts of Josephus' Wars, plus a version being found in Slavonic Josephus' account of the Wars, plus the reference to it being in Wars by Agapius is significant. It shows that the TF was not only being changed incidentally in terms of words, but even location was variable.

We may look at variability at different textual levels:

1. Words.
2. Incidents/Event: Words generally describe incidents or events
3. Tales: Incidents are put together to tell a tale
4. Story: Tales are put together to tell a story
5. Book: Stories are put together to create a book
6. Collection of Books: Books are put together to create a collection

The TF is a tale of Jesus. It seems to be variable on all six levels from the time it is first mentioned by Eusebius circa 315 to the time of Agapius in the 10th century. While words are almost always variable, and incidents are occasionally variable, it is not the usual case for a story to vary on all these levels.

Warmly,

Philosopher Jay

Ben C Smith

Quoting three times from Wars and twice from Antiquities is not an anomaly. It is a statistic.

This does not make any sense to me. Can you explain it, please? Agapius says that Josephus wrote 20 books on the topics he mentions (organization of the Jews, their emigration, their high priests, the wars against the Romans and the siege of Jerusalem); all those topics are present in the Antiquities. He is obviously aware of a work by Josephus in 20 books that contained those topics; Antiquities fits the bill.

Sorry, I am not following. What word, exactly, are you assuming is the same between the second and the fifth reference? (According to the summary of Pines that I gave you, we already know which word designating the Josephan work in question appears in the second reference and what word appears in the fifth. Unless you are saying that Pines is mistaken about the actual words used in the Arabic text.)

Could it also be a coincidence that most other texts of Josephus places the Testimonium in the Antiquities and Agapius apparently places it there too? If Agapius meant the Wars, then he is agreeing with the Slavonic Josephus. If he meant the Antiquities, then he is agreeing with the rest of the witnesses to the text of Josephus. This is, at best, a wash for your overall point.

That is a good question, and one I do not know the answer to.

Ben.

DCHindley

That would be "Codex Vossianus" per
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

Since the Vossian library contained a large number of codices, I found a more precise reference, "Codex Vossianus Graec.72 Olim Petavianus" housed at the Univeristy Libary in Leyden (Zindler) at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Josephus_on_Jesus

DCH

the_cave

As noted by me also in post #11 above Again, see Roger Pearse's "Josephus: All the Manuscripts" page for more details (and the facsimile in Eisler)

The fifth reference seems to be confused, because Josephus doesn't treat the siege in Antiquities, of course, so this looks like a derivative reference. However, the first I assume comes from Antiquities, doesn't it? Still, being only one reference, Agapius could have gotten it from someone else.

DCHindley

So you did! <g>

Yeah, I thought about looking in Eisler but didn't feel like wading through the gazillion photocopied books in my library to find it.

DCH