Marginal Notes, Interpolations, & Parallels in Josephus

[Peter Kirby]

I just came across this when I was intrigued by the marginal notes in Josephus, much-mentioned and seldom-discussed. Eisler is one of the few writers that seem to have studied these things in great detail and has left some appendices regarding Josephus in his book The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, of which I have extracted three.

page1.png (307.45 KiB) Viewed 10343 times

page2.png (214.73 KiB) Viewed 10343 times

page3.png (301.59 KiB) Viewed 10343 times

page4.png (288.08 KiB) Viewed 10343 times

page5.png (337.8 KiB) Viewed 10343 times

page6.png (121.67 KiB) Viewed 10343 times

Most observers pass over this stuff in silence, although the curious case of Ant. 18.3.4 has elicited commentary from those who believe that a longer, more negative passage about Jesus may have stood in place of the text currently at Ant. 18.3.3 (reference escapes me at this moment).

I don't have any pointed conclusion, but it's a shame if this kind of data is left on the cutting room floor of history.

[Stephan Huller]

FWIW I've always wondered whether the Hegesippus is not 'our Josephus' + Christian additions but that that our Josephus is a 'corrected' version of an already Christianized text (i.e. reforming a silly history back into something respectable) and Hegesippus is one of many 'fucked up' texts that circulated before Eusebius standardized the stupidly incredible history of the Jews that passed around in Christian circles. My theory is kind of an exaggerated version of Shaye Cohen's thesis. Great stuff.

[DCHindley]

I just came across this when I was intrigued by the marginal notes in Josephus, much-mentioned and seldom-discussed. Eisler is one of the few writers that seem to have studied these things in great detail and has left some appendices regarding Josephus in his book The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, of which I have extracted three.

Most observers pass over this stuff in silence, although the curious case of Ant. 18.3.4 has elicited commentary from those who believe that a longer, more negative passage about Jesus may have stood in place of the text currently at Ant. 18.3.3 (reference escapes me at this moment).

I don't have any pointed conclusion, but it's a shame if this kind of data is left on the cutting room floor of history.

Since the Greek I learned in the late 1970s is long ago rusted away, I wish he had at least translated the notes. However, where he does offer some sort of translation, it is - well - just weird!

Jwr 4:484 φασὶ δὲ ὡς δι᾽ ἀσέβειαν οἰκητόρων κεραυνοῖς καταφλεγῆναι ἔστι γοῦν ἔτι λείψανα τοῦ θείου πυρός καὶ πέντε μὲν πόλεων ἰδεῖν σκιάς ...

Jwr 4:484 It is related (φασὶ, affirmed, in Genesis) how, for the impiety of its inhabitants, it was burnt by lightning; in consequence of which there are still the remainders of that divine fire; and the traces [or shadows] of the five cities are still to be seen, ...

485 τὰ μὲν δὴ περὶ τὴν Σοδομῖτιν μυθευόμενα τοιαύτην ἔχει πίστιν ἀπὸ τῆς ὄψεως

485 And thus what is related (μυθευόμενα, to be spoken of or recounted) of this land of Sodom (presumably in the book of Genesis) has these marks of credibility which our very sight affords us.

ση(μεῖον). ἄπιστος ἄνθρωπος οὐδὲ Ἑβραῖός ἐστι

Note: faithless man is not-even a Hebrew ["(This) Faithless Man is not-even a Hebrew," or "A faithless man (someone who does not believe the account) is not-even a Hebrew"]

I do not know what it means either. Considering the context, that it is reasonable to believe the story of the divine destruction of the Sodomites and the nearby cities because of the traces of their ruins that can still be seen, it does not appear to me to suggest that Josephus considered these stories "myths" (as we mean the word). The Greek word μυθεύω refers to "something that is said," but I do not think it matters whether the story was relayed in oral or written form. The marginal note may just be a moralization, and not a condemnation as Eisler took it to mean. Yet, if the scribe or reader who made the note thought Josephus was "faithless," say for not believing in Jesus as Christ, this might pass for as criticism, as in "He says you can believe something in scripture on the basis of confirming evidence, but doesn't believe in Christ who was predicted in scripture and confirmed by actual events in Pilate's time, so he is not even a true Hebrew."

DCH

[John T]

I'm sure someone here knows the answer but why can't the glosses or interpolations be from Epaphroditus? Epaphroditus is credited by Josephus as the man that gave him the strength to complete/edit his "Antiquities".

If (big if) he was the same Epaphroditus who served as the secretary for Paul (in Rome) and even perhaps Nero, wouldn't that make him the prime suspect as the source of so many discrepancies found in the gospels and the works of Josephus?

Sincerely,

John T

[DCHindley]

I'm sure someone here knows the answer but why can't the glosses or interpolations be from Epaphroditus? Epaphroditus is credited by Josephus as the man that gave him the strength to complete/edit his "Antiquities".

If (big if) he was the same Epaphroditus who served as the secretary for Paul (in Rome) and even perhaps Nero, wouldn't that make him the prime suspect as the source of so many discrepancies found in the gospels and the works of Josephus?

Well, it could be the same man in all three contexts, but perhaps it is also a common enough name that it is just coincidence.

Wikipedia gives several folks with that name:

Epaphroditus (freedman of Augustus), could not prevent the suicide of Cleopatra VII of Egypt (30 BC)
Epaphroditus, (1st century), sent by the Philippians to minister to Paul of Tarsus
Epaphroditos, (1st century), freedman and secretary of Nero
Marcus Mettius Epaphroditus, (1st century), grammarian from Chaeronea

Josephus' Epaphroditus is likely a freedman of Vespasian or Titus, not Nero, unless on Nero's death his allegiance (freedmen were still obligated to their former master's family for life) may have been transferred to Vespasian/Titus. However, Nero was related to Augustus, and Vespasian/Titus were not, meaning there was no familial obligation involved, so IMHO the man is probably different.

It is a slave name, meaning "handsome." Folks can put two and two together, but here at this forum a lot of people will get an answer other than four.

DCH

[arnoldo]

Most observers pass over this stuff in silence, although the curious case of Ant. 18.3.4 has elicited commentary from those who believe that a longer, more negative passage about Jesus may have stood in place of the text currently at Ant. 18.3.3 (reference escapes me at this moment).

Jerome Murphy O'Conner writes in Paul: A Critical Life that originally Josephus wrote a negative commentary concerning believers. O'Connner writes,

"If all were seekers after truth", this could leave the impression that what Jesus preached was in fact truth. Is this likely to stem from Joesphus? it harmonizes better with the concerns of Christian interpolator. What, then might Josephus have written?

A plausible suggestion involves the change of only one letter, and it offers a more fitting context for hedone, which normally connotes physical pleasure rather than intellectual gratification. The corrected text reads didaskalos anthropon ton hedone ta aethe (in place of talethe) dexomenon "a teacher of those with an appetite for novelties. This rendering has a certain instrinsic probability.

[Blood]

It's telling that we have to look to 80 year old obscure books to find this type of analysis. I'm sure that recent Josephus scholars get into it, but it seems to be of no interest to mainstream Christian theologians.

[steve43]

There are some very curious aspects to Book 18 of Antiquities, no doubt.

[Peter Kirby]

Here is an download (21MB) of the entire book by Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, as a PDF.

[DCHindley]

Here is an download (21MB) of the entire book by Robert Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, as a PDF.

Where did you find this?

While I have a photocopy of the entire book and have scanned small sections of it on several occasions, the decisions as to which pages to save as images and which to try to OCR were staggering. As you can see with this copy, sometimes the OCR leaves something to be desired.

Still, editing the OCRd text into a text file would be very useful, if only for some of the studies he did (althoughy not all, we really don't need his analysis of the Sleb as a type for Rechabites). Anyone care for some toasted locusts ... oops! ... I mean, carob beans?

DCH