andrewcriddle

This is not an argument that (some form) of the TF is part of the authentic text of Josephus, (although it obviously has a bearing on this), it is an argument that the Testimonium Flavianum is, on external evidence, pre-Eusebian.

Most of the early witnesses to the TF are clearly (Jerome and Rufinus) or probably influenced by Eusebius of Caesarea however only one witness clearly referring to the TF and unlikely to have been influenced by Eusebius is sufficient to make a Eusebian creation of the TF unlikely.

The form of the TF in the Latin version of the 'Jewish War' attributed to Hegesippus (henceforward Pseudo-Hegesippus) probably qualifies. (book 2 chapter 12)

This version of the TF has been referred to on this forum and other places as representing an underlying non-standard text of the TF one without the statement 'he was the Christ'. Here I am mainly concerned with the probable independence of this passage from Eusebius.

First some background: Pseudo-Hegesippus is a Latin work in 5 books based on the 'Jewish War' with large ommissions and additions. The manuscripts vary in supposed authorship some attribute it to Hegesippus (which may or maynot be a Latin corruption of Josephus) some attribute it to Ambrose. It is almost cetainly not by Ambrose, some modern scholars attribute it to Isaac a Jewish convert to Christianity active in Roman church politics in the 370's. The work mentions Constantinople by name and is clearly written in a time of confidence in the Empire that dates it before the sack of Rome in 410. More precise dating depends largely on a passage in Book 2 chapter 9 which appears to refer to the suppression of revolt in Britain by the Roman general Theodosius in 367-370 as a recent triumph of the Empire. On the other hand the work contains no reference to the problems with the Goths which would culminate in the disaster at Adrianople in 378. Hence the work is usully dated shortly after 370 making it our earliest reference to the TF after Eusebius. (Jerome's reference in 'Illustrious Men' is probably early 390's Rufinus's Latin translation of Eusebius probably late 390's).

In theory Pseudo-Hegesippus could be influenced indirectly by Eusebius in the sense that Greek copies of the 'Antiquities' in Italy had by 370 been 'corrected' on the basis of Eusebius. However this is improbable, particularly since Latin speakers in Italy are unlikely to have known much about Eusebius's work before the writings of Jerome and Rufinus in the 390's.

On the other hand it is unlikely that Pseudo-Hegesippus knew directly of Eusebius's 'Ecclesiastical History'. Firstly the 'Antiquities' is clearly being used directly and not just via extracts in Eusebius and others. For example in Book 2 chapter 4 there is an account of the seduction of Paulina (Antiquities 18 ch 3).

Secondly there are few passages which seem even arguably based on Eusebius. The account in Book 3 chapters 1-2 of Nero persecuting Christians in Rome of Peter and Paul being martyred and of Peter's conflict with Simon Magus is similar to passages in Book 2 of the 'Ecclesiastical History' but one can find the same material in the Acts of Paul and Peter and other sources. In book 5 chapter 44 the account in 'Jewish War' book 6 chapter 5 of a prophecy predicting world government for Vespasian the is rewritten to say that Christ was the one the prophecy was really about. This is similar in basic theme to 'Ecclesiastical History' book 3 chapter 8 but without detailed parallels. There are no other early parallels here to Eusebius and Pseudo-Hegesippus but IMO Eusebius is not the source of Pseudo-Hegesippus here. One of the puzzles of Pseudo-Hegesippus is its numerous points of resemblance to the Slavonic version of the 'Jewish Wars'. Presumably both derive from an early Christianised version of the 'Jewish Wars'. The Slavonic Josephus in book 6 chapter 5 has a reading about the prophecy of world dominion 'some understood this to mean Herod others the crucified miracle-worker Jesus others again Vespasian'. This resembles Pseudo-Hegesippus enough to suggest they go back here to a common Greek variant of the 'Jewish Wars'.

Thirdly apart from Josephus there is little evidence of Pseudo-Hegesippus using Greek sources. The material about Peter may go back to Greek sources but was probably available in Latin and a passage in Book 5 chapter 9 about the temple ritual has resemblances to Philo's 'Life of Moses' but is mainly based on 'Jewish Wars' book 5 chapter 5. Apart from these Pseudo-Hegesippus uses almost entirely Latin sources. (Eusebius was not translated into Latin till 395 or later).

Hence it is unlikely that Pseudo-Hegesippus is directly or indirectly influenced by Eusebius hence it provides a witness to the TF independent of Eusebius.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

Great post Andrew! I'm up in Taipei and away from my library. I'll get back to this later.

Steven Carr

Who would have thought arguments from silence could be so powerful?

So Christians, even at such an early date, would rewrite Josephus to make it more Christian?

Isn't the TF in Antiquities , and not Jewish Wars?

Toto

Even?

From The Use and Abuse of Josephus (an online chapter of Steve Mason's Josephus and the New Testament).

andrewcriddle

I agree that the date of Pseudo-Hegesippus is open to question, but the reference to a currently triumphant Roman Empire become implausible after things begin to fall to pieces from Adrianople 378 onwards.

Probably.

Pseudo-Hegesippus certainly rewrote Josephus to make it more Christian in 370-375.

The difficult question is about the resemblances between the 4th century Latin version of Josephus and the 11th ? century Slavonic version of Josephus.

The resemblances could just possibly be independent Christian rewriting, but this seems unlikely. The other possibilities are direct influence of the Latin on the Slavonic which also seems unlikely or a very early 'modified' Greek version of the 'Jewish Wars'.

(NB Some of the resemblances between Pseudo-Hegesippus and Slavonic Josephus are not specifically Christian eg material about the conflicts within the Herod family in Pseudo-Hegesippus Book 1 chapters 43-44 which correspond to Jewish Wars Book 1 chapters 30-32)


Pseudo-Hegesippus is basically a paraphrase of 'Jewish Wars' but uses a substantial amount of material from 'Antiquities' eg Book 1 chapter 38 contains material about a pestilence following the judicial murder by Herod of his wife Mariamne which derives from 'Antiquities' book 15 chapters 7 and 9 and has no parallel in 'Jewish Wars'.

Andrew Criddle

Toto

Why is a direct influence of Pseudo-Hegesippus on Slavonic Josephus so improbable?

andrewcriddle

I said it was unlikely not that it was out of the question.

It has been seriously suggested by Vincentius Ussani whose edition of Pseudo-Hegesippus I'm using but there are problems.

a/ The Slavonic Josephus is generally regarded as a translation from Greek not Latin and this would seem prima facie likely although I'm not sure how far a Greek original has been proved rather than assumed.

b/ Pseudo-Hegesippus differs so drastically from Josephus that it cannot be the main source of Slavonic Josephus which is less drastic a rewrite.

c/ There are various elements in Pseudo-Hegesippus which presumably originated in Latin such as a tendency to make allusions to Virgil. These elements IIUC are not found in Slavonic Josephus.

On the other hand Vincentius Ussani found several places where Pseudo-Hegesippus and Slavonic Josephus agree against the standard text of Josephus which seem to be misunderstandings of what Josephus meant and which Ussani regarded as more plausibly a misunderstanding of Latin than a misunderstanding of Greek.

I may be wrong but I still think direct Latin influence on an 11th century Slavonic translation of an originally Greek work to be a bit unlikely.

Andrew Criddle

PhilosopherJay

Hi Andrew,

For Eusebius to make up text and quote them in his History would have been
absurd, if he had not also been able to circulate the rewritten original manuscripts with the text in them. Thus we have to assume that if Eusebius wrote the Testimonium, he was able to circulate the reedited texts of Josephus around the time of the History. Any Christian historian would certainly have chosen Eusebius's edited Josephus before any other circulating non-Christian text.

Also, I do not understand why a Christian historian living in 370 and rewriting a history of Jospehus should not have read the only comprehensive history of Christianity written till that time. Do you believe that Eusebius's work did not circulate among the Christian intelligensia? Eusebius tells us that Constantine had a battery of scribes waiting to translate his works into Latin. How hard was it to get translations done from Greek to Latin or Latin to Greek in this period? It seems to me that anybody with the time and resources to translate Josephus, not a small work, could and would easily get his hands on Eusebius's works. By this time the Roman Catholic Church was the richest organization in the Roman Empire. It is a bit surprising that they could not circulate their own history books.

Warmly,

Jay Raskin

andrewcriddle

Given that Pseudo-Hegesippus is writing well after Eusebius it is obviously possible that he was influenced by Eusebius.

However it seems unlikely that Eusebius and/or Constantine took deliberate measures to replace copies of Josephus throughout the empire with 'corrected' versions. Frankly I think they both had other priorities.

It is possible that the Ecclesiastical History was translated into Latin before Rufinus in the 390's but there is no evidence.

Apart from the limited exceptions I discussed in my first post there is no evidence that Pseudo-Hegesippus used the 'Ecclesiastical History' and unless it already existed in a Latin version I doubt if he would have done so.

As a general point it is IMO more likely that a 'revised' version of Josephus would spread by being the version preferred as a basis for new copies than that old copies would be deliberately destroyed in favour of a new version.

The other references to the TF can be explained more or less plausibly merely on the basis of a forgery at Caesarea gradually contaminating the tradition. For Pseudo-Hegesippus this explanation is much less plausible.

Apart from these general points there is also IMO a problem about Eusebius creating the TF in the belief that he was able to correct texts of Josephus throughout the Empire.

This does not seem at all plausible until Constantine's victory over Licinius and Constantine becoming ruler of Eastern Empire as well as Western Empire around 324.

Our present text of the 'Ecclesiastical History' dates from after this and the question of what exactly was is earlier versions is unclear. However Eusebius quoted the TF in his 'Demonstratio Evangelica' which is normally dated to 318 at the latest. At this time Eusebius had no reason to believe that he could alter texts of Josephus throughout the Empire even if he wished to do so.

Andrew Criddle

Vorkosigan

I don't want to derail, but I disagree. The major literary figures and librarians wrote each other frequently. Suppose you were a librarian and word reached you of a manuscript of Josephus with the TF, and yours didn't have it. Wouldn't you want the "correct" version? Simply introducing the change would be enough to ensure that eventually it would spread to all versions. To argue otherwise is to argue that there existed somewhere in the empire a series of librarians of uncompromising integrity who, one after another, would refuse to alter their copies of the TF. Otherwise, at some point -- it only takes one scribe -- the forgery would replace the original. It's simply a literary case of Gresham's Law.....

Eusebius doesn't need any dastardly plan to change every copy of the empire. Who would be able to resist the urge to correct their copy of Antiquities once they'd heard of the altered version with the two references to Jesus in it? You can imagine the conversations in the 5th century:

Letter of LIBRARIAN 1: But our copy of Antiquities doesn't have this passage about Jesus!
Reply of LIBRARIAN 2: Those *@&#^$ pagans! They've deleted the reference to Our Lord! I've enclosed a copy of the missing passages for you to add.....

Even if someone had called Eusebius on it (who? how?), how could they have proven anything? Recall that ten centuries later someone would alter the Bible to insert trinitarian doctrine into 1 John, making Erasmus eat his words. Anyone challenging Eusebius' version would be stuck in the same position as Erasmus -- hewing to a doctrinally and historically "inferior" text.

No plan needed. Just the confidence born of three hundred years of fraud that the fraudulent TF would not be challenged either.

Vorkosigan