andrewcriddle

In a very old thread Did Voss (Vossius) possess a Josephus Manuscript without the TF? I suggested that the original basis for this claim was Isaac Voss' doubts about the originality in the TF of the phrase "if it be lawful to call him a man".

I think I have found the original reference by Isaac Voss De Septuaginta Interpretibus p162

It seems (on a cursory inspection) to be about an ancient text of Rufinus' latin translation of the TF. (I presume Vossius is referring to Rufinus' translation of the TF from Eusebius.)

Translations comments etc on the passage by Vossius welcome.

Andrew Criddle

Could the title please be corrected to Voss(ius) and Josephus ? I left out the final s

Roger Pearse

I am deeply impressed. How on earth did you find that?!?

I've had a first read of the passage about the TF (which starts on p.161), and I'm not quite sure what is being said here. Is he saying that the text of the TF as given by Rufinus, presumably in the Latin translation of the HE:

(a) differs from that in the Greek
(b) some recent copies of Rufinus are being "corrected" from the Greek, but old manuscripts of Rufinus show that this has happened?

A quick transcribe (anyone up for the Greek?), and then some first cut attempts at translation.

itaque (And so) quamvis (however much) plures compareant discrepantiae (many have compared the discrepancies) In eo (in it),

si quis (if anyone) vulgatam lectionem (the vulgate reading) committat cum (compares with) exemplaribus manu exaratis (copies written by hand), et cum iis scriptoribus (and with those writers) qui olim haec verba Josephi attulere, (who once these words of Josephus quoted),

attamen (nevertheless) duae tantum difficultates occurunt (two great difficulties have arisen) quae negotium videantur facessere (which seem to go away -- but how does "negotium", effort, fit in?) et de quibus forsan possit dubitari. (and about which perhaps it is possible to doubt).

Prior (?) in his verbis (in these words) constitit (it said), <greek>.

Sed vero Rufinus (But in fact Rufinus) ab hac lectione (from this reading) recessit (avoids?), sic enim vertit (for he translates thus): Hic erat mirabulium operum effector (He was a worker of marvellous deeds).

Vulgo aliter edidere (It is generally edited otherwise), et uti passim (and used?everywhere), ita quoque (so also) reformarunt (they change) hic Rufini versionem (this translation of Rufinus) ad hodiernos Graecos codices (to the <text of the> Greek codices of today).

At vero (And in fact) hanc quam exhibemus (that these which we give) esse lectionem veram (are the true reading) antiqua exemplaria Rufini (ancient copies of Rufinus) quae consulimus (which we have consulted) testantur (they testify),

quorum unum (of which one) jam ante octo saecula exaratum (now written eight centuries ago) penes (?) non exstat (does not exist).

Probably all wrong, but that's my first take.

Did I get the feeling that Voss was a *supporter* of the authenticity of the TF?

All the best,

Roger Pearse

andrewcriddle

There are two Vosses who get confused. Isaac Voss, the one here, IIUC supported authenticity.

Andrew Criddle

Roger Pearse

The other Voss was the von who made ze phone calls .... Jonathan Voss?

Too much sunshine...

andrewcriddle

The Greek passage on p. 162 is if it be lawful to call him a man for he was a doer of marvellous works

The Greek passage at the beginning of p. 163 is the beginning of this if it be lawful to call him a man

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

This is quite interesting Andrew. Wonderful to have found this.

Vorkosigan

Great work.

avi

Thank you Andrew.

I wish I could offer the same range of compliments as previous forum participants, but my level of ignorance is so lofty that I am still examining pine needles with my nose to the earth, hoping to discover dimensions of the forest.

I need to start at the beginning, to make any sense of this thread.

Please feel free to correct any and all errors on this summary:

Josephus wrote something in Aramaic, which was then translated into Greek, ~100 CE. Oldest extant Greek version from circa 10th century? Zero extant copies of the original Aramaic.

Origen wrote something in Greek, circa 220 CE, regarding Josephus' text, now lost?

Eusebius wrote something in Greek, circa 330 CE, regarding Josephus' text, including Testimonium Flavianum, as part of HE (Historia Ecclesiastica).

Rufinus wrote something in Latin, circa 400 CE, translating from Greek into Latin, both Origen' De principiis, and Eusebius' HE, as well as writing his own book in Latin: De Adulteratione Librorum Origenis, which explains that many of the heretical positions attributed to Origen were actually interpolations and falsifications of Origen's original text.

Isaak Vossius writing in Latin, circa 1660 commented on Rufinus' analysis of TF versus Eusebius' version of same.

If I have understood Vossius' Latin, (or Roger's superb translation of it--thank you!!), then Vossius argues that a single phrase from the original Greek, as found in the codices extant in that era, is not incorporated in Rufinus' Latin translation of HE, in harmony with Jerome's criticisms of Rufinus' translations of Origen, as too "free".

However, and this is the primary reason for my submitting this verbose post, I don't find the Latin sentence where Vossius concludes that the original Greek manuscript of the Aramaic text of Josephus did not contain TF, as suggested by the OP. It seems to me, that Vossius is simply asserting absence of the phrase, which you have kindly juxtaposed on pages 162-3. The phrase "for he was a doer of wonderful works", does seem to be not present in Vossius' presentation of Rufinus' translation of Eusebius' quote from Josephus' Greek translation.

But, that is not really pertinant to the central question, is it? What difference does it make, if that phrase is included, or excluded?

Doesn't the central question here, relate to the issue of interpolation of the entire passage, i.e. the explicit reference to Jesus, as "the Christ", rather than as someone who had merely performed "marvelous deeds"?

Whether or not Josephus did or did not claim, in his original Aramaic text, that JC had performed "marvelous deeds" seems non-sequitur to my "nose searching for pine needles" method of thinking. The question is not whether Josephus referred to some chap as a magician, but rather, whether or not Josephus identified Jesus of Capernaum as "the Christ", aka "messiah". Would such an identification not have been remarkable for a Jewish member of the priestly clan?

avi