Is there a core text of the Testimonium Flavianum?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Is there a core text of the Testimonium Flavianum?

Post by Ken Olson »

Or, to put it another way, is there any part of the Testimonium Flavianum that appears in all the versions we have?

The Arabic version of the Testimonium is sometimes claimed to have the core text of the passage but different emendations. This is possible, but the argument seems circular. Of course different variants differ -- that's why they're called variants. But how do we identify what is core text and what is emendations? This seems to be based on scholars' evaluation of the internal evidence, not manuscript attestation. John Meier offers a reconstructed core text based on internal evidence -- basically dividing the passage into what he believes Josephus could have said about Jesus (the core text) and what he believes Josephus could not have said about Jesus (the three parts of the passage that he identifies as Christian interpolations). While Agapius' text does omit one and qualifies two of the parts Meier identifies as Christian interpolations that Josephus could not have said, it is also is very different on the material in Meier's core text. It lacks reference to Jesus' miracle-working, his teaching the truth, Jewish involvement in Jesus death, and the continuation of the Christian nation to this day.

At one point, I wondered if the reading in the Agapian text "his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous" might have been influenced by the reading found in John Malalas (and also in The Religious Dialogue at the Sassanid Court) that says Christ was "a good and just man." But when I looked at Agapius and Malalas, it seems that the two are wildly different -- other than that statement in which they sort of agree, Malalas has what Agapius lacks and vice versa. Malalas questions whether one ought to call Jesus a man and says that the Jews crucified him (with no reference to Pilate) while Agapius lacks the question about whether Jesus ought to be called a man and says Pilate crucified him (with no reference to the Jews) and also has the statement that he may have been the Christ foretold by the prophets (which Malalas lacks).

So the question I want to put to the forum is: is there really a core text to the Testimonium that can be established by manuscript attestation, or is this always a matter of what witnesses the scholar hypothesizing a core text prefers to use? Once one includes paraphrases like Pseudo-Hegesippus, Malalas and Agapius in the mix, isn't every part of the Testimonium missing somewhere? if we include the Slavonic version of the Testimonium, even the name Jesus is missing. It seems that if every part of the received form of the Testimonium is missing somewhere, we ought to be very cautious about arguments of the form "a Christian writer would not have omitted X." The evidence would seem to be explained equally well or better on the theory that Christian writers vary a lot and any particular one might omit any part of the passage.

Ben Smith and David Hindley have helpfully compiled lists of the various textual witnesses to the Testimonium:

http://www.textexcavation.com/josephustestimonium.html

http://www.textexcavation.com/documents/hindleyref.html

Anyway, I'll be interested to hear what the members of the forum think about this.

Best wishes,

Ken
Last edited by Ken Olson on Wed Dec 21, 2016 2:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.
outhouse
Posts: 3577
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 6:48 pm

Re: Is there a core text of the Testimonium Flavianum?

Post by outhouse »

is there really a core text to the Testimonium that can be established by manuscript attestation, or is this always a matter of what witnesses the scholar hypothesizing a core text prefers to use?
Like most scholars your going to find many different opinions on just about everything here. Some are obvious and understood by many.

What I personally do is look at each sentence or paragraph in question on an individual basis and see if there is a middle of the road so to speak.

I usually cannot find a single scholar that posits every idea or opinion I can follow, and I choose a wide range to try and absorb their point of view to best form my own.

My own opinion is that many interpolations are due to how ancient authors inked these text, more often then not even if attributed to one author, a group was behind the text. In doing such many "possible" interpolations can be attributed to the compilation or prose of said text, while others are obvious later additions.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Is there a core text of the Testimonium Flavianum?

Post by DCHindley »

Ken, your second link (presumably to my meager contribution to this issue) seems to have been truncated.

Try http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... =20#p56136

DCH
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Is there a core text of the Testimonium Flavianum?

Post by Ken Olson »

David,

I've fixed the link (and I use your searchable compilation fairly often).

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is there a core text of the Testimonium Flavianum?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote:Or, to put it another way, is there any part of the Testimonium Flavianum that appears in all the versions we have?
To perhaps help a bit with that question, I have divided up all of the texts on my Testimonium interface page into sense units and laid them out here below. I could not preserve the order of some of the passages, since some of the authors mix it up a bit, but I believe the entirety of each text is displayed in full:

Key.

Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews 18.3.3 §63-64 (century I), textus receptus.
Origen 1: On Matthew 10.17 (century III).
Origen 2: Against Celsus 1.47 (century III).
Eusebius 1: History of the Church 1.11.7b-8 (century IV).
Eusebius 2: Demonstration of the Gospel 3.5.105-106 (century IV).
Eusebius 3: Theophany 5.44 (century IV).
Gregory: On the Cognition of God (allegedly century IV, but actually century IX, by pseudo-Gregory).
Ambrose: On the Downfall of Jerusalem 2.12 (century IV), pseudonymous, also known as pseudo-Hegesippus.
Jerome 1: On Famous Men 13 (century V).
Jerome 2: Greek translation of On Famous Men 13.
Rufinus: Latin translation of History of the Church 1.11.7b-8 (century V).
Isidore: Book 4, epistle 225 (century V), Pelusiota.
Sozomen: History of the Church 1.1.5 (century V).
Anonymous: Against the Jews 10 (century V or VI).
Dialogue: Religious Dialogue at the Sassanid Court (century V or VI).
Oecumenius: Commentary on the Apocalypse 88 (century VI).
Monachus 1: Chronicon (century IX), George.
Monachus 2: Chronicon Breve (century IX), George.
Malalas: Chronography 10 (century IX), John.
Haimo: Epitome of Sacred History 1.13 (century IX).
Agapius: History of the World (century X); Pines, pages 9-10.
Suda: Lexicon iota 503 (century X).
Constantine: On Virtues and Vices 1.84 (century X), VII Porphyrogenitus.
Symeon: Chronicon 59 (century X), Logothetes.
Leo: Chronography (century XI), Grammaticus.
Cedrenus: Compendium of History (century XI), George.
Zonoras: Epitome of History (century XI or XII), John.
Michael: Chronicle (century XII), the Syrian; Pines, page 26.
Glycas: Annals (century XII), Michael.
Comestor: Scholastic History (century XII), Peter.
Salisbury: Polycraticus 2.9 (century XII), John.

1. And there is about this time

Josephus: Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον
Origen 1: -
Origen 2: -
Eusebius 1: Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον
Eusebius 2: Γίνεται δὲ κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν χρόνον
Eusebius 3: At that time there was
Gregory: Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον
Ambrose: ...quod fuerat illo in tempore
Jerome 1: Eodem tempore fuit
Jerome 2: Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον
Rufinus: Fuit autem iisdem temporibus
Isidore: Γίγνεται δὲ κατ’ ἐκεῖνον τὸν καιρὸν
Sozomen: -
Anonymous: Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον
Dialogue: -
Oecumenius: Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον
Monachus 1: Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον
Monachus 2: Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον
Malalas: -
Haimo: Fuit autem iisdem temporibus
Agapius: At this time there was
Suda: Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον
Constantine: Γίνεται δὲ κατὰ τὸν χρόνον Πιλάτου ἡγεμονεύοντος Ἱεροσολύμων
Symeon: Ἔτι κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν ἦν
Leo: Ἔτι κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν καὶρον ἤν
Cedrenus: Κατὰ τὸν καιρὸν τοῦτον... ἦν
Zonoras: Γίνεται δὴ κατὰ τοῦτον τὸν χρόνον
Michael: In these times there was
Glycas: was
Comestor: Fuit vero hisdem temporibus
Salisbury: Fuit autem iisdem temporibus

2. Jesus, a wise man,

Josephus: Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ,
Origen 1: ...τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἡμῶν
Origen 2: τῷ Ἰησοῦ
Eusebius 1: Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ,
Eusebius 2: Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ,
Eusebius 3: a wise man named Jesus,
Gregory: Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἄνθρωπος,
Ambrose: vir sapiens,
Jerome 1: Iesus, sapiens vir,
Jerome 2: Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ,
Rufinus: Iesus, sapiens vir,
Isidore: Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ,
Sozomen: -
Anonymous: Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ,
Dialogue: ἀνδρὸς
Oecumenius: Jesus, a wise man,
Monachus 1: Ἰησοῦς, ἀνὴρ σοφός,
Monachus 2: Ἰησοῦς, ἀνὴρ σοφὸς,
Malalas: Ἰησοῦν, ὃς ἦν ἄνθρωπος
Haimo: Iesus, vir sapiens,
Agapius: a wise man who was called Jesus.
Suda: Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ,
Constantine: Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ,
Symeon: Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ,
Leo: Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ,
Cedrenus: Ἰησοῦς ὁ σοφὸς ἀνὴρ
Zonoras: Ἰησοῦς, σοφὸς ἀνήρ,
Michael: a wise man named Jesus,
Glycas: ἄνδρα σοφὸν...
Comestor: Iesus, sapiens vir,
Salisbury: Iesus, sapiens vir,

3. if indeed it is necessary to say that he is a man;

Josephus: εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή·
Origen 1: -
Origen 2: -
Eusebius 1: εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή·
Eusebius 2: εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή·
Eusebius 3: if it be fitting to call him a man;
Gregory: εἴπερ ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή·
Ambrose: si tamen oportet, inquit, virum dici
Jerome 1: si tamen virum eum oportet dicere;
Jerome 2: εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή·
Rufinus: si tamen virum eum nominare fas est;
Isidore: εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή·
Sozomen: Ἄνδρα μὲν γὰρ ἀυτὸν ἀποκαλεῖν ὀκνεῖ,
Anonymous: εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή·
Dialogue: -
Oecumenius: εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή·
Monachus 1: εἴγε ἄνδρα λέγειν αὐτὸν χρή·
Monachus 2: εἴγε ἄνδρα λέγειν αὐτὸν χρή·
Malalas: εἴπερ ἄρα τὸν τοιοῦτον ἄνθρωπον δεῖ λέγειν καὶ μὴ θεόν,
Haimo: si tamen eum virum nominare fas est;
Agapius: -
Suda: εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή·
Constantine: εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή·
Symeon: εἴγε αὐτὸν ἄνδρα λέγειν χρή·
Leo: εἴ γε αὐτὸν ἄνδρα λέγειν χρή·
Cedrenus: εἴγε ἄνδρα λέγειν αὐτὸν ἐχρῆν·
Zonoras: εἴγε ἄνδρα αὐτὸν λέγειν χρή·
Michael: if it is fitting for us to call him a man.
Glycas: -
Comestor: si tamen virum eum nominare fas est;
Salisbury: si tamen virum eum appellare fas est;

4. for he was a doer of miraculous works,

Josephus: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής,
Origen 1: -
Origen 2: -
Eusebius 1: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής,
Eusebius 2: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής,
Eusebius 3: for he was the worker of wonderful deeds
Gregory: for he was a doer of miraculous works,
Ambrose: mirabilium creatorem operum,
Jerome 1: erat enim mirabilium patrator operum
Jerome 2: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής,
Rufinus: erat enim mirabilium operum effector
Isidore: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής,
Sozomen: ὡς παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητὴν
Anonymous: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής,
Dialogue: καὶ ἀγαθοῦ, ἐκ θείας χάριτος ἀναδειχθέντος σημείοις καὶ τέρασιν, εὐεργετοῦντος πολλούς.
Oecumenius: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής,
Monachus 1: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητὴς
Monachus 2: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητὴς
Malalas: ἀγαθὸς
Haimo: erat enim mirabilium operum effector
Agapius: His conduct was good,
Suda: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής,
Constantine: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής,
Symeon: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητὴς
Leo: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής
Cedrenus: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητὴς
Zonoras: ἦν γὰρ παραδόξων ἔργων ποιητής,
Michael: For he was a worker of glorious deeds
Glycas: καὶ μεγάλων σημείων ἐργάτην,
Comestor: erat enim mirabilium effector operum
Salisbury: erat enim mirabilium operum effector

5. a teacher of men who receive true things with pleasure,

Josephus: διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,
Origen 1: -
Origen 2: -
Eusebius 1: διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,
Eusebius 2: διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τἀληθῆ σεβομένων,
Eusebius 3: and a teacher of men, of those who in truth accept grace,
Gregory: διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,
Ambrose: cum praeceptis moralibus... invitarentur
Jerome 1: et doctor eorum qui libenter vera suscipiunt;
Jerome 2: διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,
Rufinus: doctorque hominum eorum qui libenter quae vera sunt audiunt,
Isidore: διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,
Sozomen: καὶ διδάσκαλον λόγων ἀληθῶν,
Anonymous: διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,
Dialogue: δικαίου
Oecumenius: διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τ’ ἀληθῆ λεγομένων,
Monachus 1: καὶ διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,
Monachus 2: καὶ διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἐν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,
Malalas: καὶ δίκαιος,
Haimo: doctorque hominum eorum qui libenter quae vera sunt audiunt,
Agapius: and he was known to be virtuous.
Suda: διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,
Constantine: διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,
Symeon: καὶ διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἐν ἡδονῇ τὰ ἀληθῆ δεχομένων·
Leo: καὶ διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἐν ἡδονῇ τὰ ἀληθῆ δεχομένων,
Cedrenus: καὶ διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν ἐν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων·
Zonoras: διδάσκαλος ἀνθρώπων τῶν σὺν ἡδονῇ τἀληθῆ δεχομένων,
Michael: and a teacher of truth.
Glycas: -
Comestor: et doctor eorum qui libenter quae ventura sunt audiunt,
Salisbury: doctorque hominum eorum qui libenter quae vera sunt audiunt;

6. and many Jews, and also many of the Greek element, he led to himself;

Josephus: καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο·
Origen 1: -
Origen 2: -
Eusebius 1: καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο·
Eusebius 2: καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τοῦ Ἰουδαϊκοῦ, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο·
Eusebius 3: and he brought together many of the Jews and many of the pagans;
Gregory: καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο·
Ambrose: plerique tamen Iudaeorum, gentilium plurimi crediderunt in eum
Jerome 1: plurimos quoque tam de Iudaeis quam de gentilibus habuit sectatores,
Jerome 2: καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνισμοῦ ἐπηγάγετο·
Rufinus: et multos quidem Iudaeorum, multos etiam ex gentilibus sibi adiunxit;
Isidore: καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο·
Sozomen: πολλοὺς δὲ ὄντας οὓς ἐπηγάγετο Ἕλληνάς τε καὶ Ἰουδαίους... μαρτυρεῖ,
Anonymous: καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ προσηγάγετο·
Dialogue: -
Oecumenius: καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ ἐκ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ προσηγάγετο·
Monachus 1: καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἑλληνισμοῦ ἐπηγάγετο·
Monachus 2: καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ Ἑλληνισμοῦ ἀπηγάγετο·
Malalas: -
Haimo: et multos etiam ex gentibus sibi adiunxit;
Agapius: And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples.
Suda: καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν τῶν Ἰουδαίων, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο·
Constantine: καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο·
Symeon: πολλοὺς γὰρ καὶ ἀπὸ Ἑλλήνων ἠγάγετο·
Leo: πολλοὺς γὰρ καὶ ἀπὸ Ἑλλήνων ἠγάγετο·
Cedrenus: πολλοὺς γὰρ καὶ ἀπὸ Ἑλλήνων ἠγάγετο
Zonoras: καὶ πολλοὺς μὲν Ἰουδαίους, πολλοὺς δὲ καὶ τοῦ Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐπηγάγετο·
Michael: Many from among the Jews and the nations became his disciples.
Glycas: -
Comestor: et multos quidem Iudaeorum, multos etiam ex gentibus sibi adiunxit;
Salisbury: et multos quidem Iudaeorum, multos etiam ex gentibus sibi adiunxit;

7. this man was the Christ.

Josephus: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.
Origen 1: οὐ καταδεξάμενος εἶναι Χριστόν....
Origen 2: ...καίτοι γε ἀπιστῶν... ὡς Χριστῷ....
Eusebius 1: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.
Eusebius 2: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.
Eusebius 3: and he was the messiah.
Gregory: this man was the Christ.
Ambrose: ???
Jerome 1: et credebatur esse Christus.
Jerome 2: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.
Rufinus: Christus hic erat.
Isidore: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.
Sozomen: Χριστὸν δὲ περιφανῶς ὀνομάζει·
Anonymous: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.
Dialogue: ...περὶ Χριστοῦ
Oecumenius: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.
Monachus 1: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.
Monachus 2: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.
Malalas: -
Haimo: Christus hic erat.
Agapius: accordingly he was perhaps the messiah,
Suda: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.
Constantine: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.
Symeon: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν,
Leo: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν,
Cedrenus: -
Zonoras: ὁ Χριστὸς οὗτος ἦν.
Michael: He was thought to be the messiah,
Glycas: ...τὸν Χριστὸν...
Comestor: Christus hic erat.
Salisbury: Christus hic erat.

8. And, when on the accusation of the first men among us Pilate had condemned him to a cross,

Josephus: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,
Origen 1: -
Origen 2: -
Eusebius 1: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,
Eusebius 2: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν ἀρχόντων σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,
Eusebius 3: And when, according to the example of the chief principal men among ourselves, Pilate put a cross on his head,
Gregory: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν καθήλωσαν Ἰουδαῖοι σταυρῷ, ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου·
Ambrose: in quo Christi Iesu claruit aeterna potentia, quod eum etiam principes synagogae quem ad mortem comprehenderant deum fatebantur.
Jerome 1: cumque invidia nostrorum principum cruci eum Pilatus adfixisset,
Jerome 2: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,
Rufinus: hunc accusatione primorum nostrae gentis virorum, cum Pilatus in crucem agendum esse decrevisset,
Isidore: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,
Sozomen: καὶ τῷ σταυρῷ καταδικασθῆναι
Anonymous: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,
Dialogue: -
Oecumenius: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,
Monachus 1: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐν δόξῃ τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,
Monachus 2: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,
Malalas: ...ὅτι ἐξότε Ἰουδαῖοι ἐσταύρωσαν
Haimo: hunc accusatione primorum gentis nostrae virorum, cum Pilatus agendum in crucem esse decrevisset,
Agapius: Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.
Suda: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,
Constantine: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,
Symeon: ὃν Πιλάτος σταυρώσας
Leo: ὅν Πιλάτος σταυρώσας.
Cedrenus: ὃν Πιλάτου σταυρώσαντος
Zonoras: καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ’ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου,
Michael: but not according to the testimony of the principal men of our nation. Because of this, Pilate condemned him to the cross and he died.
Glycas: σταυρωθέντα δὲ
Comestor: hunc accusatione primorum nostrae gentis, cum Pilatus in crucem agendum esse decrevisset,
Salisbury: hunc accusatione primorum nostrae gentis virorum, cum Pilatus in crucem agendum esse decrevisset,

9. those who had first loved him did not cease;

Josephus: οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες·
Origen 1: -
Origen 2: -
Eusebius 1: οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες·
Eusebius 2: οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες·
Eusebius 3: those who formerly loved him were not silent;
Gregory: οὐκ ἐξεπαύσαντο δὲ οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες τὰ αὐτοῦ καταγγέλλειν·
Ambrose: quibus ne mors quidem eius vel fidei vel gratiae finem inposuit, immo etiam cumulavit deuotionem
Jerome 1: nihilominus qui primum dilexerant perseverarunt {in fide};
Jerome 2: οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον αὐτὸν ἀγαπήσαντες·
Rufinus: non deseruerunt hi qui ab initio eum dilexerant;
Isidore: οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες·
Sozomen: ἐπιμεῖναι ἀγαπῶντας αὐτὸν...,
Anonymous: οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες·
Dialogue: -
Oecumenius: οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες·
Monachus 1: οὐκ ἐξεπαύσαντο οἱ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες·
Monachus 2: οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ πρὸ τοῦ κτείνειν ἀγαπήσαντες·
Malalas: -
Haimo: non deseruerunt qui ab initio eum dilexerant;
Agapius: But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship.
Suda: οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες·
Constantine: οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον ἀγαπήσαντες·
Symeon: οὐκ ἐξεπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον αὐτὸν ἀγαπήσαντες·
Leo: οὐκ ἐξεπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον αὐτὸν ἀγαπήσαντες·
Cedrenus: οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο κηρύσσοντες περὶ αὐτοῦ οἱ τὸ πρῶτον αὐτὸν ἀγαπήσαντες μαθηταί·
Zonoras: οὐκ ἐπαύσαντο οἱ τὸ πρῶτον αὐτὸν ἀγαπήσαντες·
Michael: For those who had loved him did not cease to love him.
Glycas: -
Comestor: non deseruerunt eum qui ab initio dilexerant eum;
Salisbury: non deseruerunt hi qui ab initio eum dilexerant;

10. for he appeared to them on the third day living again,

Josephus: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,
Origen 1: -
Origen 2: -
Eusebius 1: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,
Eusebius 2: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,
Eusebius 3: for he appeared to them on the third day alive,
Gregory: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,
Ambrose: qui apparuerit discipulis suis post triduum mortis suae vivens
Jerome 1: apparuit enim eis tertia die vivens;
Jerome 2: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,
Rufinus: apparuit enim eis tertio die iterum vivus,
Isidore: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,
Sozomen: καὶ τριταῖον ζῶντα φανῆναι
Anonymous: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,
Dialogue: -
Oecumenius: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,
Monachus 1: φάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,
Monachus 2: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,
Malalas: -
Haimo: apparuit enim tertia die iterum vivus,
Agapius: They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive;
Suda: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,
Constantine: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,
Symeon: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ πάλιν ζῶν,
Leo: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ πάλιν ζῶν,
Cedrenus: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἡμέραν ἔχων πάλιν ζῶν,
Zonoras: ἐφάνη γὰρ αὐτοῖς τρίτην ἔχων ἡμέραν πάλιν ζῶν,
Michael: He appeared to them alive after three days.
Glycas: ζῶντα φανῆναι μετὰ τρίτην ἡμέραν.
Comestor: apparuit enim his iterum vivus,
Salisbury: apparuit autem die eis tertia iterum vivus,

11. the divine prophets having said both these things and myriads of other wonders concerning him.

Josephus: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων.
Origen 1: -
Origen 2: -
Eusebius 1: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων.
Eusebius 2: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων,
Eusebius 3: the divine prophets having said this and many other things concerning him.
Gregory: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων.
Ambrose: secundum prophetarum scripta, qui et haec et alia innumerabilia de eo plena miraculi prophetaverunt,
Jerome 1: multa et haec et alia mirabilia carminibus prophetarum de eo vaticinantibus.
Jerome 2: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων.
Rufinus: secundum quod divinitus inspirati prophetae vel haec vel alia de eo innumera miracula futura esse praedixerant.
Isidore: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε περὶ αὐτοῦ καὶ ἄλλα μυρία θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων.
Sozomen: καὶ ἄλλα μυρία θαυμάσια περὶ αὐτοῦ προειρῆσθαι τοῖς θείοις προφήταις οὐκ ἀγνοεῖ.
Anonymous: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτα καὶ ἄλλα μυρία θαυμάσια περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων.
Dialogue: -
Oecumenius: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτα καὶ ἄλλα θαύματα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων.
Monachus 1: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια προειρηκότων.
Monachus 2: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια προειρηκότων.
Malalas: -
Haimo: secundum quod divinitus inspirati prophetae vel haec vel alia invicem miracula esse praedixerant.
Agapius: concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.
Suda: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτα καὶ ἄλλα μυρία θαυμαστὰ περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων.
Constantine: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτα καὶ ἄλλα μυρία θαυμάσια περὶ αὐτοῦ εἰρηκότων.
Symeon: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων.
Leo: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων.
Cedrenus: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μαρτυρησάντων περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια καὶ εἰρηκότων.
Zonoras: τῶν θείων προφητῶν ταῦτά τε καὶ ἄλλα μυρία περὶ αὐτοῦ θαυμάσια εἰρηκότων.
Michael: For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of such marvelous things.
Glycas: -
Comestor: secundum quod divinitus inspirati prophetae vel haec vel alia de eo futura praedixerant.
Salisbury: secundum quod divinitus inspirati prophetae vel haec vel alia de eo innumera miracula futura esse praedixerant.

12. And even until now the tribe of Christians, named from this man, has not been lacking.

Josephus: εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.
Origen 1: -
Origen 2: -
Eusebius 1: εἰς ἔτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.
Eusebius 2: ὅθεν εἰς ἔτι νῦν ἀπὸ τοῦδε τῶν Χριστιανῶν οὐκ ἐπέλ{ε}ιπεν τὸ φῦλον.
Eusebius 3: From then until now the sect of the Christians has not been wanting.
Gregory: -
Ambrose: ex quo coepit congregatio Christianorum et in omne hominum penetravit genus, nec ulla natio Romani orbis remansit quae cultus eius expers relinqueretur.
Jerome 1: et usque hodie Christianorum gens ab hoc sortita vocabulum non defecit.
Jerome 2: εἰς τε νῦν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ εἴλιπε τὸ φῦλον.
Rufinus: sed et in hodiernum diem Christianorum, qui ab ipso nuncupati sunt, et nomen perseverat et genus.
Isidore: εἰς δὲ τὸ νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.
Sozomen: καὶ τὸ ἀπ᾿ αὐτοῦ ὠνομασμένον μὴ ἐπιλεῖψαι φῦλον.
Anonymous: εἴς τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φύλον.
Dialogue: -
Oecumenius: εἰσέτι τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλιπεν φῦλον.
Monachus 1: εἰς ἔτι καὶ νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλειπε τὸ φῦλον.
Monachus 2: εἰσέτι καὶ νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.
Malalas: -
Haimo: sed et in hodiernum diem Christianorum nomen perseverat et genus.
Agapius: -
Suda: εἴς τε νῦν τὸ τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένον οὐκ ἀπελείπετο φῦλον.
Constantine: εἴς τε νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.
Symeon: -
Leo:
Cedrenus: -
Zonoras: εἰσέτι νῦν τῶν Χριστιανῶν ἀπὸ τοῦδε ὠνομασμένων οὐκ ἐπέλιπε τὸ φῦλον.
Michael: And the people of the Christians, named after him, has not disappeared till this day.
Glycas:
Comestor: sed et in hodiernum diem Christianorum, qui ab ipso dicti sunt, et nomen perseverat et genus.
Salisbury: sed et in hodiernum diem Christianorum, qui ab eo nuncupati sunt, et nomen perseverat et genus.

13. [a bit from Malalas alone, reminiscent of various authors writing concerning James the Just, attributing Judean troubles to the crucifixion of Jesus]

Josephus: -
Origen 1: -
Origen 2: -
Eusebius 1: -
Eusebius 2: -
Eusebius 3: -
Gregory: -
Ambrose: -
Jerome 1: -
Jerome 2: -
Rufinus: -
Isidore: -
Sozomen: -
Anonymous: -
Dialogue: -
Oecumenius: -
Monachus 1: -
Monachus 2: -
Malalas: οὐκ ἐξέλειψεν ὀδύνη ἐκ τῆς Ἰουδαίας χώρας.
Haimo: -
Agapius: -
Suda: -
Constantine: -
Symeon: -
Leo: -
Cedrenus: -
Zonoras: -
Michael: -
Glycas: -
Comestor: -
Salisbury: -

IIRC, my list of witnesses is missing (at least) one. Is that correct, Ken? If so, do you remember which one it is?
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Sun Jun 23, 2019 4:24 pm, edited 4 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ken Olson
Posts: 1222
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 9:26 am

Re: Is there a core text of the Testimonium Flavianum?

Post by Ken Olson »

Ben,

Leo Grammaticus. You posted it here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2471&p=56233&hilit= ... leo#p56235

Thanks! That was a lot of work. I wonder if the question I asked needs to be refined. After posting, it occurred to me that some of the references to the Testimonium are really short, particularly the Religious Dialogue, so my question really boiled down to what witnesses don't have what the Religious Dialogue has?

Looking over your parallels briefly, I wouldn't agree with all of your judgments (of course, it's entirely likely no two people would agree exactly). I think Ambrose (my Pseudo-Hegesippus) has a lot more parallels if we count the larger context in which he discusses the Testimonium rather than just the part he specifically attributes to Josephus. And I wasn't thinking of Origen as a witness. I hadn't noticed that the Dialogue and Malalas do call Jesus a man, though not a wise one. And I probably would have put the Dialogues signs and wonders with the maker of miraculous works rather than fulfillment of prophecy.

So now I wonder, what's the significance of this? My initial thought is that when we include references or paraphrases to the Testimonium (like Pseudo-Hegesippus, Mallas, or Agapius) rather than actual quotations, the text is really uncontrolled. Once we include them, there's a witness against every part of the text.

Best,

Ken
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is there a core text of the Testimonium Flavianum?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Ken Olson wrote:Ben,

Leo Grammaticus. You posted it here:
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2471&p=56233&hilit= ... leo#p56235

Thanks! That was a lot of work.
No problem. :) And thanks for reminding me of Leo. I have added his text to the above.
Looking over your parallels briefly, I wouldn't agree with all of your judgments (of course, it's entirely likely no two people would agree exactly). I think Ambrose (my Pseudo-Hegesippus) has a lot more parallels if we count the larger context in which he discusses the Testimonium rather than just the part he specifically attributes to Josephus.
You are almost certainly right, but then I have to wonder how much energy I ought to expend searching all of the authors'/compilers' contexts for possible parallels. Well, perhaps those whose texts cover pretty much everything the textus receptus does might receive a free pass, but any of those which omit significant portions of that text probably ought to be considered. Overall, Ambrose/pseudo-Hegesippus was the most painful set of parallels to divide up; they are out of order, paraphrastic, and (as you point out) not all located in one contiguous piece of text.
And I wasn't thinking of Origen as a witness.
I think of him as a sort of counter-witness: he chimes in for only one major item ("he was the Christ"), not counting the bare name of "Jesus", and he does so in order to say that Josephus did not believe that.
I hadn't noticed that the Dialogue and Malalas do call Jesus a man, though not a wise one. And I probably would have put the Dialogues signs and wonders with the maker of miraculous works rather than fulfillment of prophecy.
I was up in the air on that one, and the parallel of "divine" persuaded me. But after looking at it again I agree with you, and have made the move above.
So now I wonder, what's the significance of this? My initial thought is that when we include references or paraphrases to the Testimonium (like Pseudo-Hegesippus, Mallas, or Agapius) rather than actual quotations, the text is really uncontrolled. Once we include them, there's a witness against every part of the text.
It appears that way to me. But I wonder about the validity of including paraphrases or summaries as negative evidence for what we are treating as a textual issue. If an early father summarizes the Johannine prologue in a few short, paraphrastic sentences, is he really a textual witness against the parts that he omitted? I would think we might have something if several paraphrases of the prologue omitted the same portion, but the evidence would perhaps have to be cumulative, not even really "kicking in" yet when there is only one example, perhaps not even with two or three. But I am not sure about that yet, and am still thinking it over.
Last edited by Ben C. Smith on Thu Dec 22, 2016 12:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is there a core text of the Testimonium Flavianum?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

Incidentally, I also split up the "good and just" witnesses (the Dialogue, Malalas) to line up with the more mainstream "wonderworker and teacher" elements. This, too, is very much a judgment call, since in some cases "good and just" could be filling in for "wise". But it cannot be that way in the case of Agapius, so I let Malalas and the Dialogue follow his lead.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3401
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Is there a core text of the Testimonium Flavianum?

Post by DCHindley »

Hi Ben,

Pretty extensive stuff!

One thing, though ... if you expand the context to the Malalas citation, it is not very far from Origen Against Celsus 2.13 when it comes to attributing blame for Jerusalem's destruction:

Key
Malalas, John:
Origen:
Source/Text Chronography 10 (century IX). Against Celsus 2.13 (century III)
13. John Malalas - And from that [time] the destruction [or complete ruin] of the Jews [lit. Judeans] began, just as Josephus the philosopher of the Hebrews wrote down these things, having said this also, that from when the Jews [Judeans] crucified Jesus, who was a good and just man, if indeed it is necessary to call such a one a man and not God, trouble never left the land [countryside] of Judea. These things the same Josephus has placed against the Jews in his Judaic writings. Και εξ εκεινου ολεθρος ηρξατο τοις Ιουδαιοις, καθως Ιωσηπος ο Εβραιων φιλοσοφος ταυτα συνεγραψατο, ειρηκως και τουτο, οτι εξοτε Ιουδαιοι εσταυρωσαν Ιησουν, ος ην ανθρωπος αγαθος και δικαιος, ειπερ αρα τον τοιαυτον ανθρωπον δει λεγειν και μη θεον, ουκ εξελειψεν οδυνη εκ της Ιουδαιας χωρας. ταυτα εν τοις Ιουδαικοις συγγραμμασιν αυτου εξεθετη ο αυτος Ιωσηπος Ιουδαιοις. -
14. Origen: For this [siege] began while Nero was still being king, and it lasted until the leadership of Vespasian, whose son Titus destroyed Jerusalem, as Josephus writes, on account of James the just, the brother of Jesus who was called Christ, but, as the truth demonstrates, [actually] on account of Jesus the Christ of God. - Τουτο γαρ ηρξατο μεν ετι Νερωνος βασιλευοντος, παρετεινε δε εως της Ουεσπασιανου ηγεμονιας, ου ο υιος Τιτος καθειλε την Ιερουσαλημ, ως μεν Ιωσηπος γραφει, δια Ιακωβον τον δικαιον, τον αδελφον Ιησου του λεγομενου Χριστου, ως δε η αληθεια παριστησι, δια Ιησουν τον Χριστον του θεου.

It may not be a perfect analogy (Judean countryside vs. Jerusalem, and Jesus vs. James-but-it-should-have-been-Jesus), but the gist of it is there. The bolded words would, in my point of view, be the core agreements.

Malalas' account may be based on Origen Against Celsus 2 but the details changed as he may have been exposed to alternate accounts of the Judean war with different details about the locus of destruction. Origen's chief city of the Judeans, Jerusalem, becomes devastated Judean countryside. I vaguely remember reading a later account to the effect that Judea remained barren of major towns occupied by Judean natives, almost all rural farmland. If Malalas had read something like those accounts, he was interested only in the end result, the utter ruin of the Judean province.

As for the reason for the destruction, I think that Malalas skipped by Origen's reasoning that Josephus was wrong to attribute the destruction of Jerusalem to the death of James, as it should "obviously" have been on account of the death of Jesus, and just adopted Origen's conclusion that it was "due to Jesus".

DCH
Last edited by DCHindley on Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 8994
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Is there a core text of the Testimonium Flavianum?

Post by Ben C. Smith »

DCHindley wrote:Hi Ben,

Pretty extensive stuff!

One thing, though ... if you expand the context to the Malalas citation, it is not very far from Origen Against Celsus 2.13 when it comes to attributing blame for Jerusalem's destruction.
Yes, agreed. Origen was foremost among the authors I had in mind when I mentioned that "bit from Malalas alone, reminiscent of various authors writing concerning James the Just, attributing Judean troubles to the crucifixion of Jesus."
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
Post Reply