Freethought & Rationalism Archive

markfiend · 09-30-2003, 03:28 AM

I've been reading a book called "The Hiram Key" by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas, (Arrow Books paperback, London, 1997) and there is a passage they quote that claims to be a physical description copied by Josephus directly from Pilate's arrest warrant for Jesus. I'll copy it here from page 301:

Quote:

It paints a picture of a man quite different to the image most people imagine:

Quote:

...a man of simple appearance, mature age, dark skin, small stature, three cubits high, hunchbacked with a long face, long nose, and meeting eyebrows, so that they who see him might be affrighted, with scanty hair with a parting in the middle of his head, after the manner of the Nazarites, and with an undeveloped beard.

A height of three cubits would put him at under four feet six inches, which combined with a hunchback and severe facial features would make Jesus the Christ a very easy person to recognise.

My questions are as follows:

Given that Knight and Lomas give no reference for this passage, can anyone verify its existence?
If the passage does exist in Slavonic texts of Josephus, does it mean what Knight and Lomas think it means?

(I'm somewhat sceptical of the claim, as the book itself is hardly the epitome of scholarly research, rather being a "conspiracy theory of history" version of the origins of Freemasonry, tracing the movement's foundation back to ancient Egypt!)

Thanks for the help!

markfiend · 09-30-2003, 07:08 AM

I've just noticed that I cut a bit out of the quote-- the authors claim that this quote is from a "Slavonic Josephus":

Quote:

...Josephus's description survived in Slavonic texts and came to light in the last century...

(same source as above)

godfry n. glad · 09-30-2003, 08:51 AM

It's bogus.

Unverifiable.

godfry

Toto · 09-30-2003, 11:08 AM

Roger Pearse's page on Slavonic Josephus

Quote:

Berendts and Viktor Istrin contended that the text is based on the lost Aramaic first edition of Josephus. N.A.Meshcherskii however believed that the text is a translation of the text of the standard edition revised for Russian conditions. Alice Whealey suggests that in reality the text is a medieval production.

. . .

Knowledge of the text in the west began with publications by A. Berendts in 1906. These focused on those 'additions' which concerned Christian origins - although there are other additions, and also omissions - and all of the literature since, as Meshcherskii drily remarks, has focused on these. The balance of opinion has generally been against attributing these to Josephus.

The idea that the Slavonic Josephus is based on an early Aramaic version is argued against here fairly conclusively.

It's bogus.

yummyfur · 10-02-2003, 08:16 PM

Hey Toto and godfry, is it totally bogus, as in this qoute is not in Slavonic Josephus at all, and is made up by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas.

Or is it just that the mentions of Jesus and John the basptist in Slavonic Jospehus are considered medieval additions?

The reason I ask, is there are many pages that list the additions in Slavonic Jospehus that mention someone like Jesus or John the Baptist, and discuss these at length, but I can only find a couple of places that list this qoute and it's always in reference to Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas. So it makes me wonder if this qoute is even in Slavonic Josephus at all, as no biblical scholars seem to have mentioned it.

If it isn't completly made up, where exactly is it in Slavonic Josephus? Is it in Antiquities or Wars and what section?

Thanks

Patrick Schoeb

Toto · 10-02-2003, 10:37 PM

Hmm, it does not appear to be a direct quote from the SJ. It appears to be from the pen of Rober Eisler

The sections regarding Jesus and John from the Slavonic Josephus are reprinted here: THE SLAVONIC JOSEPHUS' ACCOUNT OF THE BAPTIST AND JESUS. I haven't read through it all, but that quote is not on the page.

This page states:

Quote:

Rupert Furneau, in The Other Side of the Story, says that Jesus and Thomas were look-alike twins, and that Thomas capitalized on the resemblance wherever he went. Furneau quotes the famous Austrian historian and archaeologist Robert Isaac Eisler, who reconstructs the description of Jesus and thus of Thomas found in the Antiquities of Josephus, after removing the fanciful interpolations that Christian editors had made in the text. Eisler writes, 'His nature and form were human; a man of simple appearance, mature age, dark skin, small stature, three cubits [four feet six inches] high, hunch-backed, with a long face, long nose, and meeting eyebrows, so that they who see him might be affrighted, with scanty hair with a parting in the middle of the head, after the manner of the Nazarites, and with an undeveloped beard.' The hunched back of Jesus and Thomas is attributed to their profession of carpenter.

The Josephus homepage notes this, in response to a question about this web page:

Quote:

There is an eighth-century document written by Andreas Hierosolymitanus, Archbishop of Crete, which quotes Josephus in the following fragment:

"But moreover the Jew Josephus in like manner narrates that the Lord was seen having meeting eyebrows, goodly eyes, long-faced, crooked, well-grown."

This is quoted in Robert Eisler's book, "The Messiah Jesus" (1931), at the start of Chapter 15.

The word "crooked" used here is a translation of the Greek epikuphos, usually meaning "crooked, bent over." It could mean hunchbacked.

However, note this passage is simply attributed to Josephus by someone else; it does not appear in any manuscript of Josephus known to us; nor is it plausibly by Josephus, who almost never gives physical descriptions of people, only doing so when the information is essential to his story. It is highly unlikely Josephus would have considered Jesus' appearance relevant to the essential facts about him. Nor do the many authors who quote Josephus on Jesus prior to the eighth century, particularly Eusebius, say anything about this passage. So there is no reason to take it as authentic.

Nonetheless, Robert Eisler, who had an overactive imagination about many things, decided to take it as genuine, and invented his own "original" Josephus passage that he thinks the quotation was drawn from. It is this invention of Eisler's which is quoted on the first web site you list.

Otherwise, though, the idea that Jesus was unattractive and possibly deformed seems not to have been uncommon in the early Christian church -- see Tertullian, Against Marcion iii. 17 -- and was associated with Isaiah 52:14 and other passages the first web site quotes.

markfiend · 10-03-2003, 03:43 AM

So, what Knight and Lomas have done, is to take a hypothetical reconstruction of a non-existent passage by a man (Robert Eisler) who is described as one "who had an overactive imagination about many things", and report it as a quote from Josephus?

Wow. There's scholarship for ya.

Thanks for the info, BTW.

Peter Kirby · 10-03-2003, 04:00 AM

Scholarship is discovering the error.

best,
Peter Kirby

markfiend · 10-03-2003, 04:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Peter Kirby
Scholarship is discovering the error.

best,
Peter Kirby

If this is meant as a compliment to me, I don't think I really deserve it. All I did was read the quote and think, "That seems a bit suspicious, in that I've heard of Josephus and the interminable wranglings over whether his two references to Jesus are really by him or later Christian interpolation, so why have these guys found a third reference that no-one else ever seems to have mentioned. Now where can I find someone who knows this stuff to ask?" And lo, BC&H has the answers

keyser_soze · 10-03-2003, 06:52 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by markfiend
If this is meant as a compliment to me, I don't think I really deserve it. All I did was read the quote and think, "That seems a bit suspicious, in that I've heard of Josephus and the interminable wranglings over whether his two references to Jesus are really by him or later Christian interpolation, so why have these guys found a third reference that no-one else ever seems to have mentioned. Now where can I find someone who knows this stuff to ask?" And lo, BC&H has the answers

No, I think he means that there are two different sides. There's writing, and there's scholarship. Those who write, owe nothing to the truth. Those who are scholars, are obligated to determine what is or is not incorrect. Thus, scholars have been chipping away at josephus for the better part of 4 centuries. A poor scholar accepts something at face value, a good scholar will go all the way down into original language and find the part that doesn't fit as original or true.

10-02-2003, 08:16 PM	#5
yummyfur Regular Member Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 351	Is it completely bogus Hey Toto and godfry, is it totally bogus, as in this qoute is not in Slavonic Josephus at all, and is made up by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas. Or is it just that the mentions of Jesus and John the basptist in Slavonic Jospehus are considered medieval additions? The reason I ask, is there are many pages that list the additions in Slavonic Jospehus that mention someone like Jesus or John the Baptist, and discuss these at length, but I can only find a couple of places that list this qoute and it's always in reference to Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas. So it makes me wonder if this qoute is even in Slavonic Josephus at all, as no biblical scholars seem to have mentioned it. If it isn't completly made up, where exactly is it in Slavonic Josephus? Is it in Antiquities or Wars and what section? Thanks Patrick Schoeb

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-30-2003, 08:51 AM	#3
godfry n. glad Banned Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: portland, oregon, usa Posts: 1,190	It's bogus. Unverifiable. godfry

10-03-2003, 03:43 AM	#7
markfiend Regular Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: The People's Republic of West Yorkshire Posts: 498	So, what Knight and Lomas have done, is to take a hypothetical reconstruction of a non-existent passage by a man (Robert Eisler) who is described as one "who had an overactive imagination about many things", and report it as a quote from Josephus? Wow. There's scholarship for ya. Thanks for the info, BTW.

10-03-2003, 04:00 AM	#8
Peter Kirby Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: the reliquary of Ockham's razor Posts: 4,035	Scholarship is discovering the error. best, Peter Kirby

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.