The Jesus Passages in Josephus – a Case Study, part 2j – ”Testimonium Flavianum”: The Church Fathers’ knowledge; The post-Eusebian Greek witnessing, Theodoret and Photios

Part 1
———— ———— ———— ————
Part 2a Part 2b Part 2c Part 2d
Part 2e Part 2f Part 2g Part 2h
Part 2i Part 2j Part 2k Part 2l
Part 2m Part 2n Part 2o Part 2p
Part 2q Part 2r Part 2s Part 2t
———— ———— ———— ————
Part 3a Part 3b Part 3c Part 3d
Part 3e Part 3f Part 3g Part 3h
Part 3i Part 3j
———— ———— ———— ————
Part 4
———— ———— ———— ————
Excursus

This is part 2j of the translation of my treatise Jesuspassagerna hos Josefus – en fallstudie into English.

Den svenska texten.

II. Testimonium Flavianum

The Church Fathers’ knowledge of the Testimonium

The post-Eusebian Greek witnessing

Theodoret of Cyrus

Bishop Theodoret of Cyrus in Syria (c. 390-457) wrote about the year 433 a Commentary on the prophet Daniel.[86] In this he writes:

“Now, to the fact that the Jews of old used to call blessed Daniel the greatest prophet the Hebrew Josephus is a notable witness, who, while not accepting the Christian message, could not bring himself to conceal the truth.” (Theodoret, Commentary on Daniel 12:14)[87]

After this Theodoret exemplifies from the Antiquities of the Jews how Josephus could not hide the fact that Daniel predicted the destruction of Jerusalem.[88] Alice Whealey interpreters Theodoret’s statement that although Josephus did not accept the Christian message, he still could not bring himself to conceal the truth, as if Theodoret had access to a variation of the Testimonium where the expression “he was the Messiah” was missing in favour of “he was thought to be the Messiah”.[89] But why would Theodoret only on the basis that the Testimonium did not contain an explicit appointment, however, an indirect appointment, of Jesus as the Messiah, make this conclusion? An outright denial of the Christian message could explain Theodoret’s statement that Josephus did not accept the Christian message. But if so, we have to assume a completely different Testimonium, without the exuberant Christian praise. Theodoret’s statement rather suggests that Josephus did not accept the Christian message; that is, there was no Testimonium at all in Theodoret’s copy of the Antiquities of the Jews. Origen, Theodoret, John Chrysostom and Pseudo-Hegesippus all point out that Josephus was not a Christian. This is an obvious observation solely on the basis of Josephus’ writing in general, where he claims to be a Pharisee and never profess the Christian faith.

Photios

Then we move nearly five centuries into the future. Once again we are in Constantinople and the one who now is the Patriarch and holds the same office as Chrysostom is Photios (c. 815–c. 895). Photios is usually considered to be the most influential Patriarch of Constantinople since John Chrysostom. Photios wrote a comprehensive work that nowadays goes by the name of Myriobiblion (Ten Thousand books) or Bibliotheca (Library), where he is reviewing and summarizing 279 works of different authors, all of which he had read. Photios is interesting because he, like his predecessor Chrysostom, seems to have had access to an edition of the Antiquities of the Jews that did not contain the Testimonium.

In Bibliotheca, Photios has three short essays on Josephus.[90] In his treatment of the Antiquities of the Jews he deals with the paragraph on James in book 20,[91] as well as with the one on John the Baptist in Book 18,[92] shortly after the Testimonium. But not by a single word does he mention the Testimonium. Photios also comments on Josephus’ contemporary; the Jewish historian Justus of Tiberias and his Chronicle of the Kings of the Jews in Their Stemma. Justus wrote this now lost work of history about 80 CE, and in this he dealt with the history of the Jewish kings from Moses to Herod Agrippa II (27–c. 93 CE). Photios expresses his amazement that Justus has not mentioned Jesus at all and that he thereby is “suffering from the common fault of the Jews”.[93]

This shows that Photios as a Christian particularly was searching for references to Jesus in the works he read. Seen in this light, Photios’ omission to refer to the Testimonium becomes even stranger. How could Photios fail to mention the principal Jewish Jesus-testimony, although he refers to passages that must have been of much less importance to the Christians, such as the ones about James and John the Baptist? And he obviously thinks that Jews in general are suffering from a “fault”, and that this fault is to “not even mention the coming of Christ”. He thereby could have shown that at least one Jewish historian had indeed mentioned the coming of Christ.

The simplest and therefore reasonably the most likely explanation to why Photios did not mention that Josephus wrote the Testimonium – in spite of the fact that he is amazed that Justus did not mention Jesus ­– seems to be that a manuscript line in Constantinople of the Antiquities of the Jews had remained free from interpolation of the Testimonium. Thanks to that, the Testimonium would be missing in the handwriting that both Chrysostom and Photios had access to. They may even have used the same manuscript. This is not at all impossible, since it is not for sure that they managed to catch and “update” every manuscript if hundreds of years had elapsed from that the original was written until Testimonium Flavianum was created. In for example Eusebius’ time, copies of the Antiquities of the Jews would have been present at many locations in the vast Roman Empire.

If the Testimonium really was missing from Photios’ copy of the Antiquities of the Jews, this is indeed a strong argument in favour of the Testimonium being a forgery, since it is much easier to imagine that Photios had access to a manuscript not interpolated with the Testimonium, than he would be having access to a manuscript where the Testimonium had been removed – especially since the thing removed would have been a non-Christian historian’s glorification of Christianity’s Saviour and that the removal would have been done in the golden age of Christianity.

By clicking on the image it will open magnified in a separate window, and more clearly illustrate the context and the impact that likely exist and which I describe in the text.

Summary. A number of Church Fathers in the fourth century, and in some cases even later, also failed to refer to the Testimonium, although they had every reason to do so. If a book by a certain author shall be altered and additions be made, and this book is scattered in a large number of copies over a large area, it will take time before all copies have been identified and altered. Maybe they cannot identify all the manuscripts and the remaining copies will then be around for a long time before they eventually moulder away and are discarded. The new copies are made from approved manuscripts and in the course of time, only one or a few copies considered to represent the best text, will form the basis for all the future copies. That could explain the strange silence even among the Church Fathers in the fourth century and in one line of manuscript in Constantinople, which John Chrysostom and Photios appear to have used. In course of time the Testimonium was found in all the extant copies of Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews.

Roger Viklund, 2011-03-13


[86] Robert C. Hill writes:

“A date like 433 therefore suggests itself for Theodoret’s Daniel commentary.” (Robert C. Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on Daniel. Boston, MA, USA: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006, p. xiv)

[87] Theodoret writes:

“Now, to the fact that the Jews of old used to call blessed Daniel the greatest prophet the Hebrew Josephus is a notable witness, who, while not accepting the Christian message, could not bring himself to conceal the truth. In the tenth book of the Jewish Antiquities, after saying many things about Daniel, he goes on to say this: – – – Whereas Josephus gives this additional witness to the prophet, Jews by contrast, afflicted with utter shamelessness, have no respect even for their own teachers. Let us for our part, on the other hand, I beseech you, accept the foreknowledge of the future as from God’s prophet and make ourselves ready for that fearsome day, so that we may rise, not to everlasting shame, but to everlasting life. May it be the good fortune of us all to attain this, thanks to the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, now and forever, for ages of ages. Amen.” (Theodoret, Commentary on Daniel 12:14; translation by Robert C. Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on Daniel. Boston, MA, USA: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006, p. 327–329)

[88] Flavius Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 10:266–268 & 12:322.

[89] Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus. The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times, (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2003) p. 36ff.

[90] Photios, Bibliotheca, codex 47 (on the Jewish War) and codex 76 and 238 (on the Antiquities of the Jews).

[91] Photios tells us about Josephus and what he wrote about James, but he calls him “the brother of the Lord” and not “the brother of Jesus called Christ”:

“Ananias son of Ananias took the office of high priest after having stripped Joseph of it; he was bold, daring and bold to the extreme; he was, indeed, a follower of the sect of the Sadducees and those were hard in their judgements and inclined to every audacity. Thus, this Ananias, when Festus had died in Judaea and before Albinus had entered office, assembled the Sanhedrin on his own authority and accused James, the brother of the Lord, and others with him, of disobeying the laws and he ordered their death by stoning. On top, the most moderate Jews and king Agrippa himself, deeply affected, drove him out after three years of office and put in his place Jesus son of Damnes.” (Photios, Bibliotheca 238)

[92] Photios tells us about Josephus and what he wrote about John the Baptist:

”Herod took her from her husband and married her. It was he who assassinated John the Precursor out of fear, says Josephus, which did not raise the people against him because all followed the lesson of John because of his exceptional virtue. It was under his reign also that the Passion of the Saviour took place.” (Photios, Bibliotheca 238)

[93] Photios tells us about Josephus and what he wrote about Justus of Tiberias:

”Justus’s style is very concise, and he omits a great deal that is of the utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of His life, or the miracles performed by Him.” (Photios, Bibliotheca 33)

Annonser

Jesuspassagerna hos Josefus – en fallstudie, del 2j – ”Testimonium Flavianum”: Kyrkofädernas kännedom om TF; De eftereusebiska grekiska bevittnandena, Theodoretos och Fotios

Del 1
———— ———— ———— ————
Del 2a Del 2b Del 2c Del 2d
Del 2e Del 2f Del 2g Del 2h
Del 2i Del 2j Del 2k Del 2l
Del 2m Del 2n Del 2o Del 2p
Del 2q Del 2r Del 2s Del 2t
———— ————
———— ————
Del 3a Del 3b Del 3c Del 3d
Del 3e Del 3f Del 3g Del 3h
Del 3i Del 3j
———— ———— ———— ————
Del 4
———— ———— ———— ————
Exkurs

Detta är del 2j av min avhandling Jesuspassagerna hos Josefus – en fallstudie, vilken jag också publicerar i översättning till engelska.

The English version

II. Testimonium Flavianum

Kyrkofädernas kännedom om TF

De eftereusebiska grekiska bevittnandena

Theodoretos

Biskop Theodoretos av Kyrrhos i Syrien (ca 390–457) skrev ca år 433 en Kommentar om Daniel.[86] I denna skriver han följande:

Angående det faktum att judarna i det förgångna brukade kalla välsignade Daniel den störste profeten, är juden Josefus ett framstående vittne. Emedan han inte godtog det kristna budskapet, kunde han [likväl] inte förmå sig att dölja sanningen. (Theodoretos, Kommentar om Daniel 12:14)[87]

Därefter ger Theodoretos exempel ur Judiska fornminnen på hur Josefus inte kunde dölja att Daniel förutspått Jerusalems förstörelse.[88] Alice Whealey tolkar Theodoretos’ uppgift om att Josefus inte godtog det kristna budskapet men likväl inte kunde förmå sig att dölja sanningen, som att hade tillgång till en variant av TF där uttrycket ”han var Messias” saknades till förmån för ”han troddes vara Messias”.[89] Men varför skulle Theodoretos bara utifrån att TF inte innehöll det uttryckliga utnämnandet, dock de indirekta utnämnandena, av Jesus till Messias, dra den slutsatsen? Ett direkt förnekande av det kristna budskapet skulle kunna förklara Theodoretos’ uppgift att Josefus inte godtog det kristna budskapet. Men i så fall måste vi förutsätta ett helt annorlunda TF, utan de kristna översvallande lovorden. Snarare tyder Theodoretos’ uttalande på att Josefus inte godtog det kristna budskapet, det vill säga att inget TF alls förekom i Theodoretos’ handskrift av Judiska fornminnen. Origenes, Theodoretos, Johannes Chrysostomos och Pseudo-Hegesippos poängterar samtliga att Josefus inte var kristen. Detta är en uppenbar iakttagelse enbart utifrån det Josefus skriver i övrigt, där han utger sig för att vara farisé och aldrig bekänner sig till den kristna läran.

Fotios

Därefter förflyttar vi oss nästan fem århundraden framåt  i tiden. Vi befinner oss återigen i Konstantinopel och den som nu är patriark och innehar samma ämbete som Chrysostomos är Fotios (ca 815–ca 895). Fotios brukar framhållas som den mest inflytelserika patriarken sedan just Johannes Chrysostomos. Fotios skrev ett omfattande verk som går under namnet Bibliotheke (svenska: Boksamling), vari han recenserar och sammanfattar 279 verk av olika författare, verk som han alla hade läst. Fotios är intressant eftersom han i likhet med sin föregångare Chrysostomos förefaller ha haft tillgång till en upplaga av Judiska fornminnen som inte innehöll TF.

I Bibliotheke har han tre korta uppsatser om Josefus.[90] I hans behandling av Judiska fornminnen omtalar han såväl stycket om Jakob i bok 20[91] som stycket om Johannes döparen,[92] vilket förekommer i bok 18 strax efter TF. Men han berör inte TF med ett enda ord. Fotios kommenterar också den med Josefus samtida judiska historikern Justus från Tiberias, och dennes Palestinska historia. Detta numera förlorade historieverk, vilket behandlade judiska konungar från Mose till Herodes Agrippa II (levde 27–ca 93 vt), skrev Justus ca år 80. Fotios uttrycker sin förvåning över att Justus inte nämnde Jesus över huvud taget och att han därigenom “ uppvisar judarnas vanliga fel”.[93]

Detta visar att Fotios som kristen speciellt letade efter omnämnanden av Jesus i de verk han hade läst. Sett mot den bakgrunden blir Fotios’ utelämnande av TF än märkligare. Hur kunde Fotios underlåta att nämna det främsta judiska vittnesbördet om Jesus, trots att han redogör för passager som för kristna måste ha varit betydligt mindre viktiga, som den om Jakob och den om Johannes döparen? Och det är uppenbart att han anser att judar i allmänhet uppvisar detta ”fel” och att ”felet” består i att de ”inte ens nämner Kristi ankomst”. Därmed hade han ett gyllene tillfälle att visa att åtminstone en judisk historiker verkligen hade nämnt Kristi ankomst.

Den enklaste och därmed rimligen också mest sannolika förklaringen till att Fotios inte nämner att Josefus skrivit TF trots att han förvånas över att Justus inte nämner Jesus, verkar vara att en handskriftslinje av Judiska fornminnen i Konstantinopel förblivit fri från interpolering av TF. Därigenom skulle den handskrift som både Chrysostomos och Fotios hade tillgång till helt ha saknat TF. De kan till och med ha nyttjat samma handskrift. Detta är alls ingen omöjlighet eftersom det inte är givet att man lyckades infånga och ”uppdatera” alla handskrifter ifall flera hundra år förlupit från originalets tillkomst till dess TF skapades. På exempelvis Eusebios’ tid bör kopior av Judiska fornminnen ha funnits på många platser runt om i det vidsträckta romerska imperiet.

Om Fotios’ kopia av Judiska fornminnen verkligen saknade TF är det ett tungt vägande argument för att TF är en förfalskning, då det är betydligt lättare att föreställa sig att Fotios hade tillgång till en texttradition, som inte interpolerats med TF, än att han under den kristna glansperioden ägde en text, där någon plockat bort en icke-kristen historikers redogörelse för och glorifiering av kristendomens frälsare.

Genom att klicka på bilden uppförstoras den i ett eget fönster och åskådliggörs tydligare de samband och den påverkan som troligen förekommer och som jag beskriver i texten.

Sammanfattning. Ett antal kyrkofäder under 300-talet och i vissa fall även senare underlät också att hänvisa till TF trots att de hade alla skäl att göra det. Om en skrift av en viss författare ska ändras och tillägg göras och denna skrift finns utspridd i ett stort antal exemplar över ett geografiskt stort område, kommer det att ta tid innan alla exemplar har identifierats och ändrats. Kanske får man inte tag på alla handskrifter och dessa kvarvarande texter kommer då att finnas kvar under lång tid innan de slutligen vittrar sönder och kasseras. De nya kopior som görs kopieras från godkända förlagor och med tiden kommer endast ett eller några få exemplar som anses företräda den bästa texten att utgöra grund för alla kommande avskrifter. Denna omständighet skulle kunna förklara den märkliga tystnad som uppträder även hos 300-talets kyrkofäder och i en handskriftslinje i Konstantinopel som Johannes Chrysostomos och Fotios synes ha nyttjat. Med tiden kom TF att finnas i alla bevarade exemplar av Josefus’ Judiska fornminnen.

Roger Viklund, 2011-03-13


[86] Robert C. Hill skriver:

“A date like 433 therefore suggests itself for Theodoret’s Daniel commentary.” (Robert C. Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on Daniel. Boston, MA, USA: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006, s. xiv)

[87] Theodoretos skriver:

“Now, to the fact that the Jews of old used to call blessed Daniel the greatest prophet the Hebrew Josephus is a notable witness, who, while not accepting the Christian message, could not bring himself to conceal the truth. In the tenth book of the Jewish Antiquities, after saying many things about Daniel, he goes on to say this: – – – Whereas Josephus gives this additional witness to the prophet, Jews by contrast, afflicted with utter shamelessness, have no respect even for their own teachers. Let us for our part, on the other hand, I beseech you, accept the foreknowledge of the future as from God’s prophet and make ourselves ready for that fearsome day, so that we may rise, not to everlasting shame, but to everlasting life. May it be the good fortune of us all to attain this, thanks to the grace and lovingkindness of our Lord Jesus Christ, to whom with the Father and the Holy Spirit be glory, now and forever, for ages of ages. Amen.” (Theodoretos, Commentary on Daniel 12:14; översättning av Robert C. Hill, Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentary on Daniel. Boston, MA, USA: Brill Academic Publishers, 2006, s. 327–329)

[88] Josefus Flavius, Judiska fornminnen 10:266–268 & 12:322.

[89] Alice Whealey, Josephus on Jesus. The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times, (New York: Peter Lang Publishing, 2003) s. 36ff.

[90] Fotios, Bibliotheke, kodex 47 (om Om det judiska kriget) och kodex 76 och 238 (om Judiska fornminnen).

[91] Fotios skriver om vad Josefus skrev om Jakob, men han kallar honom ”Herrens broder” och inte ”brodern till Jesus som kallades Kristus”:

“Ananias son of Ananias took the office of high priest after having stripped Joseph of it; he was bold, daring and bold to the extreme; he was, indeed, a follower of the sect of the Sadducees and those were hard in their judgements and inclined to every audacity. Thus, this Ananias, when Festus had died in Judaea and before Albinus had entered office, assembled the Sanhedrin on his own authority and accused James, the brother of the Lord, and others with him, of disobeying the laws and he ordered their death by stoning. On top, the most moderate Jews and king Agrippa himself, deeply affected, drove him out after three years of office and put in his place Jesus son of Damnes.” (Fotios, Bibliotheke, 238)

[92] Fotios berättar om vad Josefus skrev om Johannes döparen:

”Herod took her from her husband and married her. It was he who assassinated John the Precursor out of fear, says Josephus, which did not raise the people against him because all followed the lesson of John because of his exceptional virtue. It was under his reign also that the Passion of the Saviour took place.” (Fotios, Bibliotheke, 238)

[93] Fotios berättar om vad Josefus skrev om Justus från Tiberias:

”Justus’s style is very concise, and he omits a great deal that is of the utmost importance. Suffering from the common fault of the Jews, to which race he belonged, he does not even mention the coming of Christ, the events of His life, or the miracles performed by Him.” (Fotios, Bibliotheke, 33)