An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications

PUBLICATIONS OF THE ISRAEL OF SCIENCES AND

SECTION OF

ACADEMY

HUMANITIES

HUMANITIES

AN ARABIC VERSION OF TESTIMONIUM A N D ITS

THE

FLAVIANUM

IMPLICATIONS

An Arabic Version of the Testimonium Flavianum and its Implications

by SHLOMO P I N E S

Jerusalem 1971 The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities

T h e Israel A c a d e m y o f Sciences and H u m a n i t i e s , 1971

Printed i n Israel at the Jerusalem A c a d e m i c Press

F E W H I S T O R I C A L T E X T S , or none, have been more often quoted, more passionately rejected and denounced as literary forgeries, more devotedly defended, more carefully edited and more variously emended t h a n the so-called 'Testimonium Flavianum', a short passage in Josephus' Antiquitates Judaicae, X V I I I , 63-64, dealing with Jesus. If genuine, it contains perhaps the earliest evidence concerning Jesus written down by a m a n who was not a Christian. It is therefore surprising that a recension of the Testimonium that is significantly different from t h e vulgate text has n o t been given any attention by the numerous scholars who studied this text of Josephus. This neglect may even appear inexplicable if we consider the bibliographical d a t a : the recension occurs in Kit ab al- Unwn, an Arabic historical work of the tenth century by Agapius, which has been edited twice: (1) by L. Cheikho, under the title Agapius Episcopus Mabbugensis: Historia Universalis f and (2) by
1 e 2 3

2 3 4

T h e T e s t i m o n i u m a l s o occurs sometimes, i n a n amplified form, i n cert a i n M S S o f Josephus' Bellum Judaicum, having been taken over, without d o u b t , from his Antiquitates. In the present paper I c a n n o t go i n t o the problems p o s e d b y the account o f Jesus f o u n d i n the o l d R u s s i a n translation o f Bellum Judaicum. T h e full title is Kitb al-'Unwn al-mukallal bi-fatfail al-fiikma almutawwaj bi-anw' al falsafa al-mamdht bi-fiaqaq al-ma'rifa. I n Arabic A g h b i y s ; also called M a h b b Qustantn al-Manbij. H e was the Melkite b i s h o p o f Manbij (Hierapolis). See bibliography o n p . 83.

A. Vasiliev, under the title Kitab al-'Unwn / Histoire Universelle, crite par Agapius (Mahboub) de Menbidj. Vasiliev also translated it into French. Agapius' chronicle deals with the history of the world from the beginning till the tenth century. He and his contemporary Eutychius I b n Sa id are the earliest Christian Arabic authors t o have written universal histories. Eutychius' chronicle seems to antedate Agapius', as the latter mentions in one passage that he is writing in the eighth m o n t h of the year 330 H., which corresponds to the year 942 of the Christian era; Eutychius died in 940. The passage in which the Testimonium is included may be rendered as f o l l o w s :
5 e 6

See bibliography o n p. 83. T h e bibliography relating to A g a p i u s m a y b e found i n G. Graf, Geschichte der Christlichen arabischen Literatur, II, Citt del Vaticano 1947, p . 39. A g a p i u s seems t o h a v e used Syriac rather than Arabic sources; o n e o f these sources can perhaps b e identified. I refer t o the lost historical work o f T h e o p h i l o s o f Edessa, a Syriac author w h o died i n 7 8 5 ; cf. C. H . Becker, 'Eine neue Christliche Quelle zur Geschichte des Islam', Der Islam, III (1912), p p . 2 9 5 - 2 9 6 ; . Baumstark, Geschichte der syrischen Literatur, Bonn 1912, p p . 3 4 1 - 3 4 2 . A n article o f . Baumstark, entitled ' D i e Lehre des rmischen Presbyters Florinus', Zeitschrift fr neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, X I I I (1912), pp. 3 0 6 - 3 1 9 , deals with Agapius' account of the doctrines o f this heretic. It s h o w s , inter alia, that this account, w h i c h describes otherwise u n k n o w n p o i n t s o f Florinus' doctrines, c a n n o t be derived from Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, which, as Baumstark recognizes, w a s a m a i n source for Agapius' accounts o f other Christian heresies. H e points out, however, that i n these accounts also information is given that is n o t found i n Eusebius' work. H e is inclined to believe that A g a p i u s m a y h a v e used a text written i n Syriac. A s far as Florinus is concerned, this text m a y have b e e n b u t Baumstark makes it clear that h e is n o t at all sure o f the correctness o f this h y p o t h e s i s a Syriac translation o f a letter o f Irenaeus t o P o p e Victor, w h i c h m a y h a v e included a n account o f Florinus' o p i n i o n s .

See ed. C h e i k h o , p p . 2 3 9 - 2 4 0 ; ed. Vasiliev, p p . 4 7 1 - 4 7 3 . Vasiliev's French translation is o n the w h o l e correct, but, i n view o f the importance o f the exact wording, at least with regard t o the T e s t i m o n i u m

[Al-Maribij] has said: We have found in many books of the philosophers that they refer to the day of crucifixion of Christ [al-masih], and that they marvel thereat. The first of them is the philosopher Iflan, who says in the thirteenth chapter of the book he has written on the kings: 'In the reign of [Tiberius] Caesar, the sun was darkened and there was night for nine
8 9 10

itself, I shall attempt to give a literal translation. B o t h editions o f this part o f A g a p i u s are based o n o n e single Florentine M S . H o w e v e r , m a n y passages o f A g a p i u s , including the o n e with w h i c h w e are c o n cerned, are quoted by the thirteenth-century Christian Coptic historian Jrjis al-Makn Ibn a l - A m d in his Universal History
e

( o f which only the

second part, treating o f Islamic history, has been published). These passages h a v e been collected by C h e i k h o ( w h o consulted M S Paris A r . 1294) i n the v o l u m e containing the edition o f Agapius. A second M S of al-Makn (Paris 294, foil. 162v-163r) has been used by m e for the purposes of the present paper. T h e quotation o f al-Makn is o f great help i n establishing the text o f Agapius' passage. 7 T h e w o r d s i n parentheses, w h i c h are missing in Agapius' work, are taken from al-Makn's text (quoted i n Cheikho's edition, p p . 3 9 0 - 3 9 1 ) . Al-Manbijj refers to A g a p i u s (see above, n. 3). 8 Ifltn is the usual A r a b i c form o f Plato. Here Phlego (Phlegon) o f Tralles appears t o be m e a n t ; cf. b e l o w p . 52. W e may suppose that a scribe has confused s o m e form o f the rare n a m e Phlegon w i t h w h i c h w a s familiar. 9 L i k e A g a p i u s , Eusebius states i n h i s Chronicon Chronicon that the passage in Eusebius der
9

Ifltn,

question occurred in the thirteenth b o o k o f Phlego's w o r k . Eusebius' is preserved i n : (1) an A r m e n i a n translation; cf. bersetzt, Christlichen Schriftsteller Werke, V '.Die Chronik des Eusebius aus dem Armenischen lated b y J. Karst (Die griechischen drei Jahrhunderte Latin version; cf. Eusebius
1

transersten ed.

= GCS), L e i p z i g 1911, p. 2 1 3 ; and (2) i n St. Jerome's Werke, V I I : Hieronymi Chronicon,

R. H e l m , GCS, Berlin 1956, p p . 174-175. Origen is n o t quite certain whether this passage w a s f o u n d i n the thirteenth or i n the fourteenth b o o k ; see Contra Celsum, II, 3 3 . 10 Fi tis' sa t\ literally: in nine hours. T h e use o f the proposition ft i n this context is awkward. A c c o r d i n g t o Eusebius' Chronicon version, loc. cit.; (Armenian St. Jerome's version, loc. cit.) P h l e g o n states that paenne,

there w a s night i n the sixth hour. According to a passage from Julius Africanus q u o t e d by Syncellus (cf. P. de Labriolle, La raction Paris 1950, p p . 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 ) , the eclipse, w h i c h w a s supposed t o account

hours; and the stars appeared. And there was a great and violent earthquake in Nicea and in all the towns that surround it. And strange things happened.'* r.s.y.w.s., the philosopher, says in the fifth chapter of the book he has written concerning the ways and life of the kings as [follows] : A great calamity and prolonged anguish have befallen us. The sun was darkened and the earth [al-ard] quaked, and many terrifying things are stated to have happened in the country [ard] of the Hebrews [al- ibrniyyn]. We learnt the cause of this from letters, written by Pilate [F.lt.s.], the judge, from Palestine to Tiberius Caesar. [For] he said in them that all these things happened at the death of a man whom the Jews have crucified. When Caesar heard this, he sent [an order] dismissing Pilate from judgeship over the Jews for having obeyed them. And he threatened and menaced the Jews who had crucified him.' Similarly Josephus [Ysifus], the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance [?] of the Jews:
11 6 12 e 12 14 15

for the darkness that covered the earth at the t i m e o f the crucifixion, lasted from the sixth t o the ninth hour. 11 12 O r : r.s.n.w.s.; fying or r.s.b.s.; see below, p p . 5 2 - 5 3 . terriin the country. trembled. H i s text m a y b e T h e o m i s s i o n is A l - M a k n ' s quotation from A g a p i u s o m i t s the words and many things are stated to have happened rendered: and the country word ard. 13 14 15 Al-qdi. Tiberius. T h e M S o f A g a p i u s , as read b o t h b y C h e i k h o and by Vasiliev, has ft sharr al- Yahd - On the Evil of the Jews, w h i c h is certainly incorrect. A l - M a k i n , i n his quotation from A g a p i u s published by C h e i k h o (p. 391), merely says: in the treatises 'alal-Yahd; that he has written about the Jews Vasiliev (p. 471) has n o n o t e o n sharr, but translates of the Hebrews

probably due t o a scribal error occasioned by the repetition o f the

dans ses ouvrages quHl a crits sur les guerres des Juifs. T h i s means that h e emended sharr into burb, w h i c h is not very difficult, as far as the A r a b i c script is concerned. A n o t h e r possible emendation is harb - war, i n the singular, which m a y call t o m i n d Bellum Judaicum. It is n o t wholly impossible, but i n m y o p i n i o n very improbable, that o n e o f

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus} His conduct was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. * And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and
11 1 19 20

these forms is the correct emendation. I have chosen t o e m e n d into tadbr - governance,

sharr

w h i c h seems t o b e likewise admissible from the

point o f v i e w o f the Arabic script. T h e w o r d tadbr (as well as the word hurb) occurs i n A g a p i u s (ed. C h e i k h o , p . 255) in the following sentence: And he [Josephus] governance Romans sixty-two then composed twenty books concerning or the [tadbr] of the Jews, their migration of Jerusalem. and excellent [or tradition, transmitAnd Jose-

ter s of tradition', see b e l o w ] , their high priests and the wars [hurb] of the and their capture letters of Agrippa T h e passage c o n t i n u e s : in which he praised execution. were in existence

phus' works, great knowledge t o refer t o Bellum Judaicum. Historia Ecclesiastica,

T h e s e c o n d sen-

tence corresponds t o a passage i n Josephus' Vita, 364, w h i c h appears But this passage is quoted i n Eusebius' by III, 1 0 : 1 1 , and m a y have been quoted

A g a p i u s from the latter source. T h e fact that Agrippa's letters refer t o Bellum Judaicum is n o t very conspicuous in Eusebius' text. In the first sentence o f A g a p i u s quoted i n this f o o t n o t e the work concerning the governance (tadbr) quitates, o f the Jews c a n b e identified as Josephus' Antiw h i c h has twenty b o o k s , the number mentioned by A g a p i u s .

M y preference for tadbr i n the passage i n A g a p i u s introducing the Testim o n i u m arises i n part (other reasons are given elsewhere i n this paper) from the c o m p a r i s o n of this passage with a text o f the Syriac Chronicle o f M i c h a e l ; as w e shall see below, the t w o passages are definitely c o n nected, t h o u g h i n a s o m e w h a t curious way. T h e Syriac text, w h i c h likewise introduces the T e s t i m o n i u m ( i n a version w h o s e divergencies from the vulgate text are less considerable than those found in Agapius' recension, but nevertheless very significant), refers in the following words t o the work o f Josephus i n w h i c h this T e s t i m o n i u m occurs: bem de-al dbhr de-yday - in what relates to the governance of the tadbr, Jews. T h e w o r d dbhr, which is derived from the same root as

c o u l d have been considered as an equivalent o f the Arabic word. A translator w i s h i n g t o render dbhr choose tadbr. in the w h i c h is inaccurate; (2) the word might also i n t o Arabic w o u l d probably

It m a y b e n o t e d that (1) Chabot translated the w o r d dbhr a b o v e phrase as histoire,

be read i n the plural, dbhre, w h i c h m i g h t m e a n usages. But this w o u l d n o t materially affect the bearing o f the phrase o n the text o f A g a p i u s

to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported " that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.' *
23 24 25 26 21 2

11

22

w i t h w h i c h w e are concerned. T h e fact that i n a related Syriac text the work o f Josephus containing the T e s t i m o n i u m is described as treating o f the dbhr o f the Jews seems to render it very probable that A g a p i u s i n h i s introduction to the T e s t i m o n i u m mentioned that the work o f Josephus dealt with the tadbr o f the Jews; see also below, p p . 4 4 if. 16 17 18 hu, a Syriac form o f the n a m e . A l - M a k n has F o r wa-'ulima [or: knowledge] annahu fdil outstanding. Ishu. al-Makn h a s wa-kna good anOr: way of life - sir a. Or: outstanding. and his learning 19 20 21 22 23 S'ir al-shu Filt.s Qadd 'alayh bi l-salb wa talmadhatahu. l-mawt. T h i s is the variant found in al-Makn's Literally: and. Lam yatruk quotation from A g a p i u s (Cheikho, p. 239). F o r reasons that will be stated below, this variant seems, o n the whole, to be preferable to the o n e occuring i n the M S of A g a p i u s used by Cheikho and Vasiliev: yad' 24 25 26 27 28 talmadihatahu, w h i c h m a y m e a n preached doctrine. Al-Makn's quothe doctrine; talmadha m a y render the Syriac tlmdh Dhakar. I follow the M S o f Agapius, w h i c h has fa-la'allahu. tation has wa-la'alla Or: Christ. said. ftuwa al-masih alldhi qlat 'anhu al-anbiya al-ajaib. Literally: Fa-la'allahu hdh - and perhaps this [man], b. lahu sira fyasana wa-'ilm fadil (Cheikho, p. 391) - his conduct was In A l - M a k n ' s text

nahu is omitted. T h i s m a y b e due to a scribal error.

T h e way i n w h i c h this sentence f o l l o w s the o n e concluding with wainnahu 'sha - and he was alive seems to suggest if o n e considers Arabic syntactic usage that the o p i n i o n according to w h i c h Jesus was, perhaps, the M e s s i a h is attributed t o the disciples and is n o t a personal reflection o f Josephus. T h i s is also the view of Vasiliev, expressed by the placing o f the inverted c o m m a s i n his translation o f al-Makn. Prima facie, there are these t w o ways o f interpreting this sentence the o p i n i o n that Jesus was perhaps the Messiah is either

This is what is said by Josephus and his companions of our Lord the Messiah, may he be glorified. And he also says that all the public activity of our Lord Christ, may he be glorified, [all] that he did occurred under the high priesthood of Hannn * and Qayf. For [the two] were high priests in those years; I mean [to say that his public activity occurred] from the high priesthood of Hannn till the beginning of the high priesthood of Qayf. The time between these two [dates] does not amount to four years. For when Herod had charge of them, he burnt the genealogies of their tribes, in order that it should not be known that he [was descended] from undistinguished people. He [also] took the priestly vestment and put it under his seal. And he did not allow anyone of the high priests to officiate as such for
30 31 32 33 3 35 36 31

29

a personal reflection o f Josephus, or it is attributed to Jesus' disciples. T h e first interpretation seems to be indicated if the text is considered as a piece o f ordinary Arabic prose, but this is not quite certain; i n any case, n o decisive ruling can be m a d e o n this point o n syntactic or other grounds, especially as the sentence is translated from another language. O n a Syriac rendering o f this sentence or of a similar o n e , see below, p p . 2 2 , 26, 46. 29 30 wa-asfibihi. Vasiliev translates et de ses coreligionnaires, which is a possible interpretation, but not the o n l y o n e . T h e A r a b i c text has yaqlu. F r o m the grammatical point o f view the subject o f this verb s h o u l d have been Josephus, but this is certainly n o t the case. T h e following passage is i n certain respects similar t o , t h o u g h by n o means identical with, a text o f Eusebius. Possibly this church father is the subject o f yaqlu; 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 o n this hypothesis and its i m plications and difficulties see below, p p . 54 ff. Public activity renders tadbr, a word w h i c h has been translated a b o v e by governance. literally: domination, or: leadership. Taqallubuhu. Ri'sa; I. e. A n n a s . I. e. C a i a p h a s ; cf. Luke i i i : 2 . Rtfisal-kahana. T h e M S has li-rtfsal-kahana, i.e. a dual form - the two high priests. C h e i k h o emends U-ru'asU-kahana, a plural form. This emendation

is plausible, but not necessarily correct.

more than one year * For this [reason] there came up four high [priests] in the [interval of time] between the high priesthood of Hannn and that of Qayf. For after the dismissal of Hannn, Ism'l the son of Yahy took his place. When he had finished his year and quitted his [office], Eliezer, the son of Hannn the high priest, replaced him. After he had terminated his year, Simon, son of Qamhd succeeded him. Then came
39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46

38 39 40

Literally: except for one year Ri'sa; literally: domination,

only. or leadership.

T h i s is doubtless the error o f a scribe w h o substituted the familiar n a m e Y a h y for Phab, w h i c h is incidentally found i n the Syriac vers i o n o f Eusebius* Historia History of Eusebius Ecclesiastica, I, 8 : 4 ; see The Ecclesiastical in Syriac, ed. Wright & M c L e a n , p . 4 5 . T h e par-

ticularities o f the Arabic script render this substitution possible, t h o u g h o n the face o f it o n e w o u l d n o t consider it a very likely e m e n d a t i o n . 41 42 43 44 45 46 Ismail. Literally : and had gone out T h e n a m e is written Y.l.'z.r. Historia Eliezer. Sham'n. T h e n a m e o f S i m o n , the high-priest's father, is given by Josephus (Antiquitates, X V I I I , 34) as Kamithou, i n the genitive, w h i c h suggests I, and Kamiphou and Kathe nominative Kamithes. thimou, Kathimos. Historica T h e M S S o f Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, Kamiphos Ecclesiastica has 'Li'z.r. kharaja. T h e Syriac translation of Eusebius'

1 0 : 5 give various forms for the genitive: Kamithou, Eusebius' Demonstratio, Ecclesiastica

the nominatives being probably Kamithos,

VIII, 2 : 9 9 has in the genitive the Qamhd.

form Kathimou.

T h e Syriac translation o f the passage o f Eusebius' quoted a b o v e has the form , w h i c h seems t o refer ptffctP Yoma

It m a y be n o t e d that Josephus'

t o the high priest's father, is, in fact, according to the evidence, a Greek transposition o f the n a m e o f h i s mother. T h e high priest rvriBp p is mentioned i n the Talmudical literature; cf., for instance, TB 4 7 a ; see the article rpriDp i n : J. Levy, Wrterbuch und Midraschim, lation o f Antiquitates ber die

Talmudim

IV, Berlin 1924, p p . 3 2 4 - 3 2 5 . In the Hebrew trans( n r r m p , , Jerusalem 1963, p. 284)

A . Schalit has correctly given the high priest's n a m e as

rvnfcp p pstotf

after him [and in his place] Qayf, on whose order and under whose high priesthood * our Lord, the Messiah, may he be glorified, was crucified. Thus the time between Hannn and Qayf does not [amount] to less [? aqall] than four years.
4 49

47

We have come t o a point where it seems advisable t o compare in detail Agapius' Arabic version of the Testimonium with the traditional Greek text, as given in Josephus' Antiquitates and in Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica and his Demonstratio. Variants, found in al-Makn's History, will be used in establishing the Arabic text, and versions of the Testimonium found in Byzantine chronicles will be quoted in the critical apparatus of the Greek t e x t .
50

47 48 49

'Ahd; this seems t o b e the meaning o f the w o r d i n this context. *Ahd also means Ri'sa; time. see a b o v e , n. 39.

T h i s sentence is certainly corrupt, since it seems t o contradict a sentence i n the same passage referring t o the interval o f time between the high priesthood o f IJannn and the beginning o f the high priesthood o f Qayf. A s rendered above, this sentence signifies: The time these two [dates] does not amount to four years. between It is very unlikely that

the sentence w e are discussing n o w refers to the end o f Qayf's high priesthood rather than to its beginning. There m a y have been a scribal error. O n e should perhaps e m e n d aqall Thus the time between than four 50 years. Hannn and Qayf t o akthar and translate: to more does not [amount]

Michael's Syriac and St. Jerome's Latin versions will b e quoted and discussed later o n . I n the critical apparatus o f the Greek text, s o m e o f the data given by Eisler i n h i s edition o f the Testimonium (I, p p . 8 5 - 8 6 ) have been used. Other data mentioned by Eisler and other scholars did not seem relevant i n the context o f the present paper and have been omitted.

Agapius' Arabie

Text

The Vulgate Greek

60

Text

, , * . ' . . {Antiquitates, XVIII, 63-64).

5 61 62 63 6 65 6 6 61 68 69

51 52 53 54 55 56 57

A l - M a k n , e d . Cheikho, p . 3 9 1 : ( o ^ . U ) Agapius' M S : i ^ J I ^ Al-Makn, Al-Makn's Al-Makn's Al-Makn's text reads text reads text reads J P ; al-Makn, loc. cit. JUixjj Ijjf JU loc. cit.: J - ^ U

o^j^ji J P L ^ T ^JUI

uXJS \J>J \ i s the variant given i n al-Makn's quotation. T h e M S o f Agapius, edited b y C h e i k h o a n d Vasiliev, reads A J U J \ y \ \ see above, n. 2 3 , a n d below, n. 7 5 .

58

Al-Makn's text reads 11* J * J j . T h e reading IJL* J * l i i s smoother the o n e found i n the Agapius' M S .

than

The following translations are meant t o facilitate a first comparison between the two versions of the Testimonium with which for the moment we are concerned. The words written in R o m a n type in either of the two renderings have a counterpart of some sort in the other version. H. Feldman's translation of the Greek vulgate recension of the Testimonium has been used; occasionally it has been slightly modified in order t o render it more literal.
70

59 60 61

A l - M a k n ' s text reads A > L J V I missing.

<S^\. I n his version c ^ U V I

is

Cedrenus' version reads ; see Eisler, p . 85, n. 8. A c c o r d i n g t o Malalas, Josephus describes Jesus as . las' H o w e v e r , there is s o m e reason t o believe that a passage Chronographia, has written ed. B . G . N i e b u h r , this; he has also said good been

other than the T e s t i m o n i u m m a y b e referred t o . T h e last part o f M a l a sentence (Ioannes Malalas, B o n n 1831, p p . 2 4 7 - 2 4 8 ) m a y be rendered as f o l l o w s : . . . Just as Josephus the philosopher of the Hebrews that since the time when the Jews had crucified Jesus, who was a and just man, if he is to be called a man and not a god, there had no surcease 62 of grief in the country T h e words

of Judaea (cf. also b e l o w , n. 220). have n o equivalent i n a Latin

version o f the T e s t i m o n i u m that occurs i n a M S written before the eighth century; see Eisler, p . 85, n. 13. 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 S o z o m e n o s , Historia Eusebius' Demonstratio Cedrenus has p. 86, n. 10. Other variants: ; hi MS stratio); ; ; (Eusebius' (Sermo or, (in one DemonMacarii, is written a b o v e the l i n e ) ; (Suidas); , (Isidorus Pelusianus); Ecclesiastica, ed. J. Bidez, Berlin 1960, L i b . I, . see Eisler, p . 85, . 16. see Eisler, p . 86, . 5. see Eisler, Cap. 1, p . 7, reads

reads ;

T h i s sentence is o m i t t e d by Cedrenus; see Eisler, p. 86, . 1. ; is o m i t t e d in Eusebius' Demonstratio; see Eisler, p . 86, n. 8.

is omitted i n Eusebius' Demonstratio;

according t o another

version, i n : Acta Sanctorum); 70

see Eisler, p. 80, n. 3 ; p. 86, n. 11.

Or i n the variants quoted in the n o t e s .

Rendering of the Arabic T e x t

71

Rendering of the Greek Text A b o u t this time there lived * Jesus, a wise m a n , if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing among us, had condemned him t o be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love [him] did not cease. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life. For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvellous [things] about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still up to now, not disappeared.
79 80 1

Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews: At this time there was a wise m a n who was called Jesus. And his conduct * was good, and [he] was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him t o be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders.
12 1 14 15 16 77

71 72 73 74 75

T h i s rendering is somewhat m o r e literal than the o n e given above. See above, n. 15, and below, p p . 46 ff. O r : way of outstanding. A l - M a k n ' s text. T h e M S o f A g a p i u s reads preached same w o r d , namely, talmadha, Makn's text as discipleship, as doctrine. his doctrine. The is translated i n the rendering o f allife. was good and his learning Or, according t o a l - M a k n : his conduct

and i n the rendering o f the M S o f A g a p i u s

It seems t o me that b o t h the divergencies and the similarities of the two versions are instructive. However, prima facie, SL number of divergent conclusions could be drawn from these data. It will be our task t o assess their probability. We shall start with the points of similarity. Some of these are obvious and preclude any doubt as t o the close relation between the Greek and the Arabic version. This relation is very much in evidence, if one considers the opening reference t o Jesus, and the statements concerning his winning disciples, his being the Messiah, his being sentenced by Pilate, the fidelity of his disciples, who survived his death, and his having appeared t o them on the third d a y . A detailed examination of the text leads to the less obvious discovery that in some points the Arabic version agrees with certain variants of the Greek version that do not appear in the predominant textual tradition. T h u s , at the beginning of the text the Arabic kna appears t o
81

76 77

Or, according t o al-Makn's quotation, and. A c c o r d i n g t o al-Makn's q u o t a t i o n : concerning have spoken. whom the prophets T h e s a m e verb, namely, ql, occurs b o t h i n the M S o f and i n a l - M a spoken.

A g a p i u s , i n w h i c h context it has been rendered related, kn's quotation, i n w h i c h context it has been rendered 78 79 80 81 text; cf. also below, St. Jerome's Latin version.

Literally : became ; variant : was (Cedrenus), w h i c h agrees with A g a p i u s ' Malalas' text reads a good and just man; but his quotation m a y n o t b e derived from the T e s t i m o n i u m ; see above, n. 6 1 . Cedrenus h a s the variant did not cease to preach concerning him. S o m e o f these p o i n t s o f resemblance are brought o u t by the words i n r o m a n type. W h e n similar statements are worded differently i n the t w o versions, or w h e n o n e o f the versions offers a statement that h a s n o parallel in the second version, the words are printed in italics. T o cite a n example for difference o f wording, the Arabic text reads became his disciples, whereas the Greek m a y b e rendered he won over. two A s w e shall see, this m a y b e due to a n early divergence o f recensions, and n o t merely t o a translators's licence.

agree with , which occurs in Cedrenus, rather t h a n with . The following parallel is more complicated, and perhaps also more striking: As has been stated above, al-Makn's quotation reads lam yatruk talmadhatahu - did not abandon his doctrine. Lam yatruk appears to correspond to the Greek did not cease, and has for this reason been preferred t o the variant of Agapius' M S yad U talmadhatahu-preached his doctrine. A neat solution of this textual problem would, however, have to account for the existence of the latter variant. Cedrenus' version suggests such a solution. It reads: - they did not cease to preach concerning him. The last two words have n o counterpart in the M S of Agapius, as in al-Makn's version. However, the interesting point about the sentence in Cedrenus' version is the two verbs, the first of which, - did not cease, corresponds t o lam yatruk in al-Makn's quotation, whereas the second, - to preach, agrees with yad' in the M S of Agapius. This suggests that the equivalents of both verbs occurring in Cedrenus' version may have originally appeared
83 84 e

82

82

Parallels t o this rjv m a y b e found i n Latin and Syriac versions o f the T e s t i m o n i u m ; these versions will b e discussed b o t h with regard t o this and other p o i n t s .

83

It could, however, b e argued that it is n o t o u t o f the question for t o h a v e b e e n rendered b y kna. W i t h regard t o the immediatesentence i n the Arabic version, it c o u l d perhaps b e was good and he was known to ly following

suspected that the w o r d s his conduct

be virtuous (this is the text o f the M S o f A g a p i u s , w h i c h differs from that o f al-Makn's quotation) might have s o m e relation t o Malalas' . But this seems t o m e t o b e doubtful (see was good may, as w e shall see later, b e reis b y n o above, n. 61). His conduct

lated to a n expression differing from Malalas', w h i c h occurs i n Syriac versions o f the T e s t i m o n i u m . Furthermore, fatjil - virtuous means equivalent t o 84 .

A certain awkwardness attaches t o these words in the predominant

in the Arabic version. The fact that only the first of them remained in al-Makn's quotation and only the second in the M S of Agapius may be due t o scribal errors. There are thus some grounds for believing that on some points a part of Cedrenus' version though perhaps not a well-defined branch of the Greek manuscript tradition of the Testimonium comes close t o Agapius' Arabic version. At this point the divergencies between this version and the Greek text have t o be discussed. Some of these divergencies are clearly significant: 1. Agapius does not question Jesus' being a man. 2. Agapius does not refer to Jesus' working miracles ; instead he describes him as being of good conduct and virtuous. 3. The role played by Jewish notables in Jesus' condemnation is not mentioned. 4. I n the Greek text Jesus' appearance to his disciples after his crucifixion is treated as a fact recounted by the a u t h o r ; in Agapius' version this appearance is said to have been reported by his disciples. The circumstance that this story is based on hearsay evidence stands out very clearly. 5. In the middle of the Greek text of the Testimonium occurs the uncompromising statement He was the Messiah. The parallel statement in Agapius' version occurs at the end of the Testimonium, and it is dubitative: he was perhaps the Messiah? It can be asserted with a show of truth that it is the Christian
85 6

M S S tradition, because they seem to require a complement, which i n this tradition is lacking. 85 86 Or, if w e follow a l - M a k n : exceedingly learned. A s has been stated above, there is a possibility, but only a slight o n e , that i n A g a p i u s ' version this dubitative position was attributed t o Jesus' disciples. A s w e shall see below, a Syriac version o f the Testimon i u m legitimates the hypothesis that the original form o f the dubitative statement concerning the M e s s i a h h o o d o f Jesus was slightly different and w a s modified i n the translation into Arabic. Like A g a p i u s ' phrase, this hypothetical original wording contained n o assertion supposedly m a d e b y Josephus as t o Jesus' being the Messiah.

tendency in the presentation of four or, perhaps, three of these differences fin this context point 3 is irrelevant, and point 2 may perhaps appear t o be much less important t h a n the remaining three) that is in the main responsible for the position taken u p by those scholars (they are probably the majority) who deny the authenticity of the Testimonium and regard it, or parts of it, as Christian interpolation. They reason that if Josephus tended to think that Jesus was superhuman, if he spoke of his working miracles, if he proclaimed him t o be the Messiah, and if he related as a fact his appearance t o his disciples after his death he must have been a Christian, or have come close t o being one, a conclusion that appears t o run counter t o what we know of him from his works. It also runs counter t o Origen's a s s e r t i o n that Josephus did not believe in Jesus. Accordingly, three main schools of opinion can be distinguished : 1. Those who maintain, in spite of all arguments to the contrary, the genuineness of the T e s t i m o n i u m . 2. Those who consider that all of it is a Christian fabrication.
87 88 89 90

87

T a k e n b y itself, the reference t o Jesus' miracles d o e s n o t , o f course, constitute a proof o f Josephus' c o m m i t m e n t to Christianity, but, i n conjunction with the other relevant p o i n t s enumerated i n the text, it strengthens the general impression that if h e w a s the author o f the vulgate recension, h e must have had, or have c o m e close t o , such a commitment.

88 89

See below, p . 65. T h i s w a s the p o s i t i o n of, a m o n g others, F . C Burkitt a n d A . G. Harnack. A recent example o f this attitude is provided by a n article o f F . Dornseiff, Z u m Testamentum Flavianum', Zeitschrift testamentliche Wissenschaft,
e

fr die

Neubiblio-

X L V I (1956), p p . 2 4 5 - 2 5 0 . A

graphical survey o f recent publications o n this question (up to 1962) m a y b e found i n the b o o k l e t by L . H . Feldman, Recent on Philo and Josephus 90 (1937-1962), N e w Y o r k 1964. Scholarship

Eisler (pp. 19 ff.) sets forth s o m e o f the arguments put forward b y the scholars w h o maintained this o p i n i o n , w h i c h seems to have been formulated i n 1534 by Hubert v a n Giffen (Giphanius). It w a s held, a m o n g others, b y E . N o r d e n a n d E . Meyer. I m a y a d d that all the

3. Those who believe that Josephus' Antiquitates contained a passage concerning Jesus, but that it was not the one known t o us as the Greek Testimonium Flavianum. According to this view, the Testimonium is the result of the adaptations and alterations t o which the original text of Josephus was subjected by zealous Christians. This opinion led to several attempts being made t o reconstruct the hypothetical original text. Some of them were very elaborate, and the modifications proposed were numerous and incisive. E i s l e r ' s reconstruction does not have many traits in c o m m o n with the textus receptus of the Testimonium. I n another reconstruction, the alterations and emendations were kept down t o what was regarded as a m i n i m u m . The discouraging fact about all these attempts is that the scholars who made them were guided in the main (though not in all cases exclusively; some of them used various secondary sources t o good purpose) by their personal subjective view of the probable position of Josephus with regard to Jesus a n d of the way in which he was most likely to have set forth this position. In other words, the reconstructions had, by and large, only a subjective validity. F r o m this point of view the evidential status of Agapius' version of the Testimonium is wholly different for the following reasons : This version has not been reconstructed and tailored t o suit the ideas of modern scholars as t o what is probable and what is not. It is quoted by a Christian author t o whom it certainly would not have occurred t o omit or water down references t o , and descriptions of, Jesus, which, because of their agreement with
91 92

authors w h o consider that Jesus w a s a mythical rather than a historical person regard the T e s t i m o n i u m as a Christian forgery. 91 92 Op. cit., p p . 8 7 - 8 8 . C . Martin's article, 'Le T e s t i m o n i u m Flavianum Vers u n e solution dfinitive*, Revue Belge de Philologie et d'Histoire, X X (1941), p p . 4 0 9 - 4 6 5 , m a y b e cited as a n example o f this approach t o the Testim o n i u m . M a n y other scholars c o u l d b e quoted.

the Christian faith, might be considered as not very likely to have been made by J o s e p h u s . We may also suppose that earlier Christian authors (from whom, according t o certain n o t quite conclusive indications, Agapius t o o k over his version) tampered no more t h a n he did with the text. On the other hand, there are no grounds whatever for supposing that this version was at some time or other manipulated and adapted by Jews or by Pagans for their antiChristian purposes. The decisive argument against this supposition is t h a t this version is in n o way hostile to Jesus or t o Christianity. O n the other hand, the objection that has been effectively brought t o bear against the authenticity of the Testimonium does not apply t o Agapius' version. The latter does n o t express any doubt as t o the propriety of designating Jesus as a man. His appearance after death is referred to as something reported by the disciples; it is not stated that this appearance was a fact. The sentence that mentions the possibility that he was the Messiah foretold by the prophets contains the dubitative adverb perhaps - Id alia, which may have been, as we shall see, the not quite adequate rendering of a Syriac word. In its original form the sentence may have read: He was thought to be the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have related wonders. All these traits appear t o indicate that the author of this version need not have been a Christian. Indeed, it is hardly conceivable that a Christian, even if he set out t o compose a piece of writing that was to be passed off as Josephus', would have consistently referred to Jesus with the lukewarm admiration
93 94

93

A tampering with the vulgate text o f the T e s t i m o n i u m i n order t o lessen admittedly o n l y i n a slight measure the improbability o f its having been written b y Josephus has b e e n ascribed b y s o m e scholars t o St. Jerome (cf. below, p . 43). In h i s case, t o o , this suggestion seems t o b e m o s t unlikely.

94

T h o u g h it m a y have been tampered with b y a Christian.

and the lack of s u p e r l a t i v e s characteristic of Agapius' version and would have taken care (as the author of this version evidently has done) t o avoid any statement in which the appearance of Jesus after his death and his Messiahship are unequivocally referred t o as facts In other words, the main, or the philologically most valid, objection t o the authenticity of the Testimonium does not apply t o Agapius' version. Agapius' Arabic text of the Testimonium is in all probability translated from a Syriac version of the Greek original. It is highly probable t h a t in the course of these translations, and also as a result of scribal errors, some alterations, not due t o a deliberate attempt at distortion, were introduced into the text. Reference has already been made t o a Syriac version of the Testimonium, which seems t o provide some pointers t o the existence of such alterations in Agapius' text. This version occurs in Michael the Syrian's c h r o n i c l e . This author was born in 1126 and was Patriarch of Antioch from 1166 t o 1199; he thus lived more t h a n three centuries after Agapius. Because of the points of similarity as well as divergency it seems necessary to compare his version of the Testimonium with the one found in the Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica.
9 6 97 98

95

95 96

Except, perhaps, i n praise o f Jesus' learning; see above, n. 7 4 . T h i s d o e s n o t , o f course, m e a n that a Christian m a y n o t h a v e altered this version, w h i c h i n its original form m a y h a v e been less favourable t o Jesus than is the text k n o w n t o u s ; see below, p . 69.

97

T h i s Syriac version m a y have occurred i n the historical w o r k o f the Syriac author T h e o p h i l o s , w h o m a y have been A g a p i u s ' m a i n source; see above, n. 5.

98

T h e Syriac text o f the T e s t i m o n i u m occurs i n J. B . Chabot's publicat i o n i n facsimile and translation, V o l . IV, Paris 1910, p . 91 ; the French translation m a y b e f o u n d i n V o l . I, Paris 1899, p p . 1 4 4 - 1 4 5 .

Michael the Syrian 99

The Syriac Translation

of Historia Ecclesiastica
100

99

T h e text (published i n facsimile) i s rather a p o o r o n e , as m a y b e seen by comparing it with the version o f the Syriac Historia cerned, i s largely identical w i t h this text. Ecclesiastica, w h i c h , as far as a considerable p o r t i o n o f the T e s t i m o n i u m is c o n -

100 The Ecclesiastical p . 4 8 ; cf. Historia

History

of Eusebius in Syriac, ed. Wright & M c L e a n , I, 1 1 : 7 - 8 .

Ecclesiastica,

101 Josephus; see Wright & M c L e a n , p . 4 7 , 1 . 5. 102 O n e M S reads 103 O n e M S reads 104 O n e M S reads
105 One M S reads
v

^
AXU 1

106 A third Syriac version o f the T e s t i m o n i u m , differing from the t w o others, occurs i n the Syriac translation o f Eusebius' Theophania, Greek original o f w h i c h is lost. T h i s version reads: the

(ed. S. Lee, L o n d o n 1842, V , 44) T h i s text m a y b e rendered as f o l l o w s : From Joseph on the Messiah: bnm = ] named Jesus, if it At that time there was a wise man

is fitting to call him a man fowiK probably means ]. was a worker of marvellous who in truth accept grace [or: pleasure;

For he

deeds and a teacher of men [that is] of those the text should probably b e

e m e n d e d ; Gressmann i n h i s G e r m a n translation (see below)replaces this sentence b y the parallel sentence o f the Greek vulgate recension, giving a rendering o f the Syriac phrase i n a footnote] and he gathered gether many of the Jews and many of the Pagans, And he was the When, according to the example toMessiah,

[Gressmann again substitutes, f o r the

Syriac phrase w h i c h h e translates i n a footnote, the phrase o f the Greek vulgate; h e believes probably correctly that the divergence o f the Syriac text from the Greek is due t o a mistranslation o f ] of our chief [and] principal [men], Pilate crucified him, those who had previously alive; [things]. loved him were not silent. For he appeared the divine prophets to them on the third day has not been Schriftsteller wanting, der ersten drei

having said about him this and many other

From then till now the sect of the Christians i n the series Die griechischen Jahrhunderte: Ecclesiastica, Eusebius' Werke, Christlichen

H . Gressmann's translation o f the Syriac Theophania has been published V o l . III, Part 2 , Leipzig 1904. C o m Historia

paring the Syriac translation o f the Theophania with that o f the

Gressmann notes that t h e former, i n contrast t o the

latter, slavishly follows the Greek text. T h e Testimonium occurs i n h i s translation o n p . 2 5 0 * . H e renders KS^p O l B ^ D n n n DO ID - Als Pilatus ihn,,, zu kreuzigen sich in den Kopf gesetzt hatte. I n m y o p i n i o n the original m e a n i n g o f the phrase, w h i c h is probably somewhat corrupt, m a y b e ascertained from a c o m p a r i s o n with the parallel a n d similar phrase occuring i n t h e Syriac version o f the Historia
1

Eccle-

siastica a n d i n that o f M i c h a e l : K n ^ S T i W n n DOD ? Dltt^D m n \ T h i s parallel seems t o indicate that the phrase occuring i n the version originally meant When Pilate crucified Theophania him; this corresponds,

b y a n d large, t o the signification o f t h e Syriac words, w h i c h m e a n literally When Pilate put a cross in his head.

Rendering of Michael's Text The writer Josephus also says in his work on the institutions of the Jews: In these times there was a wise man named Jesus, if it is fitting for us to call him a man. For he was a worker of glorious deeds and a teacher of truth. Many from among the Jews and the nations became his disciples. He was thought to be the Messiah. 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. For those who had loved him did not cease to love him. He appeared to them alive after three days. For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of such marvellous things [as these ]. And the people of the Christians, named after him, has not disappeared till [this] day.
107 108 109 110 111

Rendering of the Syriac Translation of Historia Ecclesiastica For he [Josephus] also speaks thus in the book of his History about our Saviour: In that time there was one wise man named Jesus if [indeed] it is fitting to call him a man. For he was a worker of glorious deeds and a teacher of men: [that is] of those who accept truth with desire. And he turned many of the Jews and likewise many from among the other nations into his disciples. For he was the Messiah. [But] upon the testimony of the principal men of our nation, Pilate condemned him to the cross. Those who had loved him did not cease to love him. For he appeared to them alive again after three days. For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of this and myriads of other marvellous things of this [kind]. And the people of the Christians, named after him, has not disappeared till our day.
112 113 114

107 O r : praiseworthy,

o r : fine. of men [i.e.] of those who receive

108 O n e is tempted t o believe that the original wording corresponded t o that o f Eusebius' version: a teacher truth with desire. O n this supposition Michael's phrase as given i n the

I n a comparison of the two Syriac versions with which we are more particularly concerned, that of Michael and that of the Syriac translation of Historia Ecclesiastica (a third one being the recension that occurs in the Syriac version of Eusebius' Theophania ), one fact stands out very clearly: as far as the greater part of the text is concerned, these versions are very similar and reflect the same translation. This is indicated not only by the use of the same wording in sentences that render literally the Greek vulgate recension, but also by the use of the
115

M S could, perhaps, have been due t o the probably accidental o m i s s i o n o f a few words. 109 T h e sentence m a y also be translated Perhaps he was the Messiah. 110 law. T h i s seems t o have been the reading in the text k n o w n t o Michael. It is also f o u n d in o n e of the M S S of the Syriac translation o f Historia Ecclesiastica, instead o f leh, w h i c h perhaps is the correct reading. See the translation o f the T e s t i m o n i u m according t o the Syriac text o f Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica. 111 Probably Michael h a d before h i m the Syriac text o f Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica as quoted above. T h e o m i s s i o n o f the words n i l ^bn from the M S o f Michael is probably d u e t o scribal negligence. 112 Literally: in the book of his narrative-niVWin In the Syriac translation o f Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica Josephus' Antiquitates are referred t o by this n a m e or are simply designated as nrVOTJi; for the latter designation, see: The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac, p . 4 3 , 1. 5, which corresponds t o the quotation in Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 9 : 2 . n n w i 3 occurs o n p . 4 5 , 1. 7, which parallels the quotation i n the Greek Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 9 : 4 . Bellum Judaicum is referred to in The Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius in Syriac, p. 27, 1. 2 0 (corresponding t o the quotation in Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 5 : 6 ) as * 57. O n p . 4 0 , 1. 11 (corresponding t o Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 8 : 9 ) , Bellum Judaicum is possibly referred t o as Nrrnrm Krvswn. O n p . 27, 11. 2 - 3 , the words jya m m K I V W O T m a i o w w orfra render * Ecclesiastica, I, 5 : 3 ) . 113 O r : praiseworthy; o r : fine. 114 See n. 110 t o the corresponding phrase in Michael's version. 115 See above, n. 106. (Historia

same expression in three cases in which t h e rendering is n o t quite literal a n d , a n even stronger argument, by t h e fact that in one sentence b o t h versions deviate in exactly t h e same manner from this vulgate recension. The instances of a n o t quite literal translation occur i n : 1. T h e third sentence of t h e Testimonium, in which both Syriac versions translate - from the nations. 2. T h e fifth sentence, in which the Syriac versions translate * o r psn - of the nation, o r of our nation. 3. T h e last sentence, in which vvv is rendered Haart TO, o r Kr*? m T S 7 - till our day, or //// [this] day. It may, of course, be argued that in t h e first a n d second case a literal translation might have been slightly awkward, a n d that in t h e third literalness is almost preserved. However, we shall see later that two of these slight divergencies from t h e Greek vulgate m a y carry some significance. A substantive deviation from t h e Greek vulgate found in t h e two Syriac versions occurs in t h e sentence \* p 7 pam 31 p V^W tf? - For those who had loved him did not cease to love him. A s far as I know, t h e words nain p (translated above to love him) o r their equivalent occur in n o other version of the Testimonium. A s against this, three points of divergence between t h e two Syriac versions should be m e n t i o n e d : 1. I n t h e second sentence of t h e Testimonium, Michael's text reads M * W T iW^l-tf teacher of truth, whereas Eusebius' text reads XTXtih 7h ptap pan Ht&ttK MD ^ I - a teacher of men, [i.e.] of those who accept truth with desire. As h a s been indicated above, this divergence may be due t o t h e omission by
1 1 6 117 118

116 T h i s w o r d appears o n l y i n Michael's version, 117 T h i s w o r d occurs o n l y i n Michael's version. 118 Other p o i n t s o f divergence between the t w o versions are t o o slight and unimportant t o b e listed i n c o n n e c t i o n with o u r enquiry.

a scribe of a number of words, b u t since it is paralleled in a Greek Byzantine version, it may also indicate a diffrent tradition. Even in t h e latter case, the divergence does n o t seem t o be due t o a different view of t h e historical facts or t o doctrinal differences. T h e t w o other points of divergence t o which we shall refer are of greater significance. 2. T h e fourth sentence of the Testimonium as given by Michael reads Kin XRHFTFT manOfc- He was thought (or : He seemed) to be the Messiah. I n the Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica the sentence reads 3 THIVK WW - For he was the Messiah. Michael's version mentions that some people thought that Jesus was the Christ, b u t does not commit the author. N o pronouncement is made as t o the truth of this belief. In Eusebius' version, o n the other hand, Jesus' Messiahship is asserted t o be a fact. 3. I n Michael's version the last part of the fifth sentence reads: IKrtyr iwma O*? IB^D narr - Pilate condemned him to the cross and he died. Eusebius' version does not have the word - and he died; it agrees on this point with the Greek vulgate. Both t h e statement that Jesus died o n the cross and the failure t o make such a statement may quite evidently be due t o theological reasons a n d have theological implications. Various hypotheses may be brought forward in order t o account for t h e existence of the divergences 2 a n d 3. One may suppose that t h e Syriac translation of Eusebius' version of the Testimonium as it is known t o us has at sometime been brought into line with the Greek text of Eusebius, having been originally different, a n d that Michael's version reflects the original text. One may mention in this connection A . Merx's view that the Greek original of the Syriac version was the earliest recension [of the Historia Ecclesiastica], afterwards to some extent modified and
1 1 9

119

T h e reading

Ktrmn OOV

is m a d e quite certain b y a c o m p a r i s o n Ecclesiastica.

w i t h t h e Syriac Historia

so brought into the form which is now preserved in the Greek manuscripts} O r one may suppose and this may, prima facie, be a more plausible hypothesis that Michael's version, which mostly agrees with, and appears to be derived from, the recension of the Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, has been contaminated by some other recension, which occurred in another source. One can also envisage a third in my opinion, a very unlikely hypothesis, according t o which divergencies 2 and 3 between Michael's version and that of the Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica are due t o the former text's having been tampered with for doctrinal reasons, or in order t o lend colour t o the claim that Josephus is the author of the Testimonium. T o my mind it is very improbable that a Syriac author of the period extending from the fourth or the beginning of the fifth century (when Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica was translated into Syriac) t o the twelfth century (when Michael lived) should for vague, presumably doctrinal, reasons have inserted into the Testimonium the word rPl - and he died. It is perhaps even more unlikely that this hypothetical Syriac a u t h o r should have modified the uncompromising assertion of Jesus' Messiahship found in the vulgate of the Testimonium, because this assertion might not be in keeping with the fact that Josephus was a Jew, and might therefore lead to a doubt concerning Josephus' authorship of the Testimonium. As far as we know, Josephus' authorship of this document was n o t questioned in the Syriac milieu during this period; there was accordingly n o reason t o buttress his claim by modifying the text. A philological, and therefore perhaps a more telling, argument may also be drawn from St. Jerome's Latin version (see below, p . 40).
20

120 G i v e n i n h i s ' N o t e s o n the A r m e n i a n version', published i n the edition o f the Syriac translation o f Eusebius' Historia and McLean, p. xvii. Ecclesiastica b y Wright

Before we go into this, we shall compare, in part, Michael's Syriac version of the Testimonium with Agapius' Arabic recension. W e have referred above t o t w o points (divergencies 2 a n d 3) o n which there seem t o be significant differences between Michael's text a n d the Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica. On b o t h these points, the Syriac text of which Agapius' version is a translation appears (though perhaps n o t a t the first glance) t o have been similar t o , or identical with, Michael's t e x t . 1 . Michael's text reads MTOftn mano - He was thought to be the Messiah; there is another possible translation: It seemed that he was the Messiah, for manOB may mean it seemed. Agapius' text reads fa-la*alla huwa al-maslh Accordingly he was perhaps the Messiah. * T h e meaning of this sentence approximates closely t o that of the Syriac sentence if the second rendering is adopted. There is, in my opinion, a distinct possibility that whoever translated t h e Testimonium from the Syriac into Arabic, be it Agapius himself or somebody else, found in the Syriac text a phrase identical with, or very close t o , Michael's phrase quoted above, a n d that he rendered anano by Id alia - perhaps.
121 122 123 12

2. Michael's text reads: rpl !^2 w n a DO? OTV* narr Pilate condemned him to the cross and he died. Agapius' parallel sentence reads : c^il j ^ i s J U ^ o\fj Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.
121 It is similar b o t h t o Michael's version a n d t o that o f the Syriac translation o f Eusebius' Historia 123 O r : and. 124 T h e reference t o Jesus' Messiahship is placed i n Agapius' version at the end o f the T e s t i m o n i u m , whereas it occurs i n all t h e other versions, i n cluding Michael's, i n t h e m i d d l e o f the text; o n this point, see below, n. 145. Ecclesiastica i n having i n the third sentence as compared with o f the T e s t i m o n i u m from . . . the other nations o f t h e vulgate recension. s.v. 122 See R . Payne-Smith, Thesaurus Syriacus,

Thus, b o t h Syriac a n d Arabic recensions contain, contrary t o other v e r s i o n s , a n explicit reference t o Jesus' death. T h e difference between them may be due t o a mistranslation of the Syriac text reflected in Agapius' phrase. There can be n o certainty, b u t t h e following conjecture seems t o be rather probable a n d t o involve only a minimal alteration of t h e text. We may suppose t h a t the Arabic translator read, presumably because of a scribal error, awna Dorf? Ol^ nam m1 Kir^m (instead of j y ) ; this could be rendered Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die, which is the sentence found in Agapius. This reconstitution is based on Michael's text, as the statement in Agapius' version, according t o which Jesus was condemned b o t h t o be crucified a n d t o die, seems n o t only t o r u n counter t o all the traditional formulations of the sentence pronounced by Pilate, b u t also t o be redundant. Michael's text, o n the other hand, mentions a circumstance that is essential t o the understanding of the story, b u t is only alluded to by implication in t h e Greek vulgate, for ... - . . . he appeared to them restored to life certainly implies that Jesus h a d died; but, as far as I know, Agapius' recension is the only one in which the fact is stated explicitly. I repeat that this reconstruction is by n o means certain, never125 126 127

125 Except the recension o f t h e so-called Egesippus' Latin version, w h i c h , however, refers t o it i n a sentence that occurs i n the T e s t i m o n i u m after the o n e with w h i c h w e are dealing. 126 T h e fact that the form m is o f rare occurrence (the usual form being mfc) w o u l d not, o f course, b e a reason for a translator, w h o thought that h e encountered it i n a text, t o forgo rendering it i n A r a b i c . 127 There is a reference t o it ( w h i c h d o e s n o t a m o u n t t o a direct statement) i n t h e so-called Egesippus' Latin version (see above, n. 125, a n d below, n. 156). A n explicit statement that Jesus died m a y have b e e n included i n the original Testimonium (whatever the latter's origin a n d exact wording m a y have been), for without it the reference t o h i s appearing restored t o life is s o abrupt a s t o b e almost unintelligible.

theless it seems worthwhile translating Agapius' recension modified in the light of Michael's v e r s i o n : Similarly Josephus the Hebrew. For he says in the treatises that he has written on the governance of the Jews: At this time there was a man who was called Jesus. His conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified, and he died. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly he was thought to be the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have related wonders. Despite the noteworthy points of resemblance between Michael's Syriac version of the Testimonium and Agapius' Arabic recension, the two cannot be regarded as being two specimens of the same recension. N o t all of the differences between the two can be regarded as scribal errors or minor variations, habitually produced by transposition from one language to another or by other causes; some of these differences are very significant indeed. I shall note four divergencies of varying degrees of importance. 1. I n the first sentence of the Testimonium, Agapius omits the words found in Michael's version in the Greek vulgate and in other recensions if it is fitting to call him a man. This may be an omission due t o scribal negligence, but this is by no means certain. Pace E i s l e r , the words in question certainly suggest
128 129 130 131 132

128 Perhaps it w o u l d b e m o r e accurate to say that this rendering aims at reconstructing s o m e passages o f the Syriac text translated by A g a p i u s into Arabic. See also the notes t o our first translation o f Agapius' text. 129 Or: His conduct 131 O r : / / seemed was good and his learning was that he was the Messiah. outstanding. 130 T h e translation has been modified i n accordance with Michael's version. T h e translation conforms t o Michael's version, w h i c h m a y have been in agreement o n this point w i t h A g a p i u s ' Syriac source. 132

Op. cit.,

p p . 55 ff.

that the author of the phrase tended t o believe that Jesus transcended ordinary humanity, whereas the author of Agapius' recension gives n o indication in any passage of the Testimonium that he personally was inclined t o favour such a view. 2. In t h e second sentence there is the following difference: Agapius' Text And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. Or, according t o al-Makin's quotation: And his conduct was good and his learning was outstanding. Michael's Version For he was a worker of glorious deeds and a teacher of truth which may b e a somewhat abridged version of that of the Syriac text of Eusebius.
1 3 3

The words and his conduct was good - wa-kanat lahu slra hasana might be interpreted though perhaps not very convincingly as n o t being essentially very different from the Syriac words arrntP *nnsn KTWO Kin vnrPK, which may be translated not as above, but for he was a worker of fine deeds. Indeed, it might be argued (though the contention does not seem t o be very probable) that the Arabic words in question are a free paraphrase of the Syriac text. There can, however, be n o doubt that whereas the words *35 1570, like t h e parallel G r e e k , possibly refer t o
134 1 3 5 136

133 T h i s i s n o t certain. 134 T h e rendering o f the phrase i n t h e Syriac version o f the Testimonium occuring i n t h e Theophania is i n contradistinction t o the versions o f Ecclesiastica and o f Michael quite the Syriac translation o f Historia doer of marvellous o f the Greek text. 136 Cf. H . G . Liddell & R . Scott, A Greek-English s.v.; Eisler, p p . 61 if. I n L u k e v : 2 , Lexicon, Oxford 1961, (Contra appears t o denote a mirdeeds.

unequivocal. It has Nmi^m n n S T K H T D 1 - for he was a

135 T h e Syriac words d o n o t render w i t h a n y accuracy the c o n n o t a t i o n

acle. It i s a n interesting fact that Celsus, quoted b y Origen

extraordinary deeds performed by Jesus, the Arabic words quoted above cannot have this meaning. They do not in any way connote marvellous or even unusual conduct or deeds. The last words in Agapius' version of the second sentence have even greater significance if they are compared with the parallel words in Michael's version. Michael's text reads: and he was... a teacher of truth - Ki^l . In other words, the author of the Testimonium recognized, according to this recension, the teaching of Jesus as the t r u t h . As against this, the parallel words in Agapius' version do not imply in any way an acceptance of the Christian position indeed, there is n o passage in this version that expresses a sentiment of solidarity on the part of the author with the Christian point of view. The words in question merely a d d another particular t o the low-key characteristic of Jesus' praiseworthy qualities, the first part of which we have already discussed: and he was known to be virtuous - wa-ulima annahu fdil. 3. Contrary t o Michael's version and to most, or all, others, Agapius' recension does not refer in its fourth sentence (or anywhere else) to the part played by the principal men among the Jews in Pilate's condemnation of Jesus. This is perhaps an omission due to scribal negligence, but it might also be a trait that characterized this recension from the beginning.
1 3 7 138

Celsum,

I, 6 : 1 7 - 1 8 ) , asserts that Jesus was able to work by magic that he seemed . to perform - T h e expression

the

applied

t o Jesus is reminiscent o f the words vulgate recension o f the Testimonium.

i n the Ecclewith

137 T h i s is also presupposed in the Syriac version o f the Historia siastica, w h i c h reads he was . . . a teacher of men who accept truth . was outstanding desire, as well as i n the Greek vulgate recension 138 Or, as i n al-Makns' variant, his learning

wa-'ilm

4. The fifth sentence of Agapius' recension of the Testimonium reads: They [the disciples] reported that he appeared to them three days after the crucifixion .- dhakam annahu zahara lahum ba'da thalthat ayyam min albihi. Thus, in contradistinction t o Michael's version and t o all o t h e r s , Jesus' appearance after the crucifixion is referred t o in Agapius' recension as a matter of report and not as a n indubitable fact. In this case, t o o , the author of this recension does not commit himself and state his own opinion as to the truth of the matter. Another much less significant detail pertaining to this sentence should also be mentioned. In referring t o the date of Jesus' appearance t o his disciples, Michael and the Syriac recension of Historia Ecclesiastica employ the words after three days} Agapius' text reads : three days after his crucifixion. This wording is much clearer, and the divergency may have resulted from an attempt by whoever translated the sentence from the Syriac into Arabic t o avoid vagueness. However, this is not certain, and it may be relevant t o observe that Egesippus uses a somewhat similar phrase (see below, n. 156). 5. It has been suggested above that the last sentence of Agapius' recension has a point of similarity with the parallel sentence in Michael's version, and that its translation should be modified in one particular because of the pointer provided by the latter version as t o the original Syriac text of Agapius' Arabic sentence. Nevertheless, the divergency between this sentence and the one
139 40

139 Except s o m e o f those that have b e e n proposed by m o d e r n scholars, w h o have altered the text of the T e s t i m o n i u m according t o their o w n idea o f what was probable. Mller, for instance, remarks : Die Disposition macht es wahrscheinlich, wie die Propheten dass Josephus es vorhergesagt', schrieb: sie ihm treu, denn sie gaben lebend erschienen, Christus p . 78). 140 T h e Greek vulgate version reads . vor, Jesus sei ihnen am dritten logische blieben neue

Tag aufs

see G. . Mller,

bei Josephus Flavius, Innsbruck 1895, p . 142 (quoted b y Eisler,

that corresponds t o it in Michael's Syriac v e r s i o n is of considerable interest. Agapius' sentence r e a d s : accordingly he was perhaps [or: he was thought to be * ] the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders - fa-la allahu al-mash aldh qalat anhu al-anbiya' al-ajaib. This one sentence at the end of Agapius' recension corresponds t o two sentences, one in the middle a n d one near the end, in Michael's and other recensions ( t h a t of t h e Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, the Greek vulgate, and so on). These two sentences a r e : 1. He was thought to be the Messiah (the fourth sentence in Michael's a n d St. Jerome's versions); o r : He was the Messiah (the fourth sentence in other versions). 2. For the prophets of God had spoken with regard to him of such marvellous things [as these] (ninth sentence in Michael's version); o r : For the prophets of God had prophesied these and myriads of other marvellous [things] about him (seventh sentence in the Greek vulgate and other recensions). This one-to-two correspondence obviously calls for an explanation. A s far as I can see, two alternative solutions may be envisaged: a. The last sentence in Agapius' recension is the result of the amalgamation at some period of the two sentences quoted above, which correspond t o it. b . The sentence in A g a p i u s ' recension (or a sentence that in essentials was similar t o it) was part of the original, or at least
142 1 3 e

141

141 T h e sentence i n q u e s t i o n i n Michael's version has the w o r d manOD, rendered a b o v e as [he was] thought. W i t h regard t o other particulars, Ecclesiastica, the Greek w h i c h will n o w b e discussed, it is c l o s e t o , t h o u g h n o t quite identical with, the Syriac text o f Eusebius' Historia vulgate a n d other recensions. 142 O r : And. 143 A s stated a b o v e (p. 31), this change i n the translation, w h i c h probably w o u l d have been validated by the lost Syriac text o f this recension, h a s b e e n m a d e i n the light o f Michael's version.

of an early, text of the T e s t i m o n i u m , that is, a text that antedated the Greek vulgate recension. Either deliberately or by some accident the sentence was dismembered, and one of its parts shifted towards the middle of the Testimonium. O n purely textual grounds, the second explanation seems to be the more probable one. There is no difficulty in imagining a way in which Agapius' sentences could have been divided into two phrases, one of which was displaced. O n the other hand, the first explanation supposes that two wholly separate sentences occurring in diffrent parts of the Testimonium were smoothly and meaningfully amalgamated so as t o produce the lucid and syntactically unexceptionable sentence that concludes Agapius' recension. I find it very difficult t o conceive that this was what happened. However, n o final answer can be given.
145

144

144 T h e question whether Josephus w a s the author o f the T e s t i m o n i u m i s not involved. A n original text of the Testimonium m a y b e supposed t o have existed, even if w e are dealing with a literary forgery. 145 A n o t h e r line o f reasoning, suggested b y D . Flusser, w h i c h appears t o lead likewise to the second conclusion outlined above, is predicated u p o n the assumption that A g a p i u s ' recension o f the T e s t i m o n i u m originally had a last sentence corresponding to that o f m o s t other versions. A s w e k n o w , the sentence i n question i n Michael's vulgate text m a y b e rendered: And the people disappeared till [this] day. of the Christians, named after him, has not T h i s assumption seems t o m e t o b e very

probable. T h e supposition that this sentence was, b y accident or for s o m e u n k n o w n reason, omitted i n A g a p i u s ' recension presents n o difficulties. O n the other hand, if the lack o f this sentence i n A g a p i u s ' recension is regarded as g o i n g back to the original text o f the Testim o n i u m , this means that at least i n this particular case this recension is considered as having preserved the original text, free from a later interpolation. O n this hypothesis the sentence i n question must b e regarded as having been added deliberately, i n order t o lend a n air o f authenticity t o the T e s t i m o n i u m . Let us assume that the sentence i n question belongs t o the original text, a n d add it at the end o f A g a p i u s ' recension. I n that case the last t w o sentences o f this recension w o u l d read: Accordingly [or: he was thought to be] the Messiah prophets have related wonders. [], And the people he was perhaps the named concerning whom

of the Christians,

Incidentally, it may be noted that the last sentence in Agapius' recension refers to the prophets speaking about the Messiah. It does not explicitly assert that they spoke about Jesus, but merely states in this context that Jesus was perhaps (or as we conjectured: was thought to be) the Messiah. The corresponding sentence in the other recensions contains the unequivocal statement that the prophets prophesied about Jesus. The various points with which we have been dealing i.e. the points of difference and of resemblance between Agapius' recension and that of Michael, and notably the fact that the former takes u p a non-committal position both with regard t o Jesus' Messiahship and to his having appeared after the crucifixion t o his disciples, whereas the latter takes u p such a position only with regard t o the first of these points s e e m t o fit in with one of the hypotheses mentioned above, namely, that which postulates the existence in Syriac of at least three very different recensions of the Testimonium: 1. The Syriac recension of Eusebius' Theophania, which does not seem t o have a direct relation t o the other Syriac versions under discussion. 2. The Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, which, in spite of its divergence from the version of the Theophania, represents, by and large, like the latter, the Greek vulgate recension. 3. The Syriac original of the version of Agapius.
1 4 6

after

him,

has not disappeared

till [this] day.

I n this reconstructed

text, the explanation o f the n a m e o f the Christians f o l l o w s immediately u p o n the reference t o Christ. In the other recensions they are separated b y several sentences, as the term is m e n t i o n e d in the m i d d l e o f the T e s t i m o n i u m . This, o f course, is a n argument i n favour o f the reconstructed text. I n consequence, it strengthens the case for what w a s called a b o v e the second explanation. 146 Especially if o n e takes i n t o account the c l o s e relation between Michael's recension and that o f the Syriac translation o f Eusebius' Ecclesiastica. Historia

According t o this hypothesis Michael's version is the result of a contamination of the former by the latter. A s far as I can see, this hypothesis has fewer obvious flaws t h a n any of the others concerned with the same facts. However, it may perhaps be questioned in the light of St. Jerome's Latin version of the Testimonium. This version, which occurs in De Viris Illustribus, X I I I , reads a s follows: Scripsit autem de domino in hunc modum: 'Eodem tempore fuit Jesus vir sapiens, si tarnen virum oportet eum dicere. Erat enim mirabilium patrator operum et doctor eorum qui libenter vera suscipiunt. Plurimos quoque tarnen de Judaeis quam de gentibus sui habuit sectatores et credebatur esse Christus. Cumque invidia nostrorum principum cruci eum Pilatus addixisset, nihilominus qui eum primum dilexerant, perseveraverunt in fide. Apparuit enim eis tertia die vivens, haec et multa alia mirabilia carminibus prophetarum de eo vaticinantibus. Et usque hodie Christianorum gens ab hoc sortita vocabulum non deficit. On some points this version comes closer to Michael's recension, and t o a lesser degree t o two other Eastern recensions we have been discussing namely, that of the Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica and that of Agapius than t o the Greek recension. The points of similarity are: 1. In the third sentence of his recension St. Jerome has de gentibus, whereas the Greek vulgate recension has *. The Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica,
1 4 7 148 149

147 T h e efficiency o f the Christian censorship, which almost succeeded in getting rid o f all the versions o f the T e s t i m o n i u m that differed i n a significant manner f r o m the vulgate recension, is illustrated by the fact that the Greek translation o f De Viris Illustrious c o n t a i n s this vulgate recension; n o n e o f the traits i n w h i c h St. Jerome diverges from it have been retained; see O. v o n Gebhardt, 'Hieronymus D e Viris Inlustribus i n griechischer bersetzung', Texte Leipzig 1896. 148 Josephus. 149 In fide is n o t f o u n d i n all the M S S . und Untersuchungen, XIV,

Michael a n d Agapius use expressions that mean from the nations, or from the other nations, i.e. correspond t o de gentibus. But this resemblance may possibly be due t o the awkwardness of a literal translation of into Syriac or into L a t i n . However, the recension of the Syriac Theophania shows that another translation was possible, namely, 03 ] - from the pagans. I n the period with which we are dealing, ", a n d so o n usually denoted pagans. 2. In t h e same sentence St. Jerome has sui habuit sectatores, which corresponds t o the vulgate Greek . The meaning of the two expressions does n o t differ appreciably, and St. Jerome may have merely given a free rendering of the Greek verb. However, his wording gains a certain significance in view of t h e fact that the parallel expression in the Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica is almost equivalent t o the one he uses: Kin 7Qbr\-he turned into his disciples. Michael apparently has the passive form vrrf?n - became his disciples', tatalmadha lahu, used by Agapius, has the same meaning. T h e Syriac Theophania has WD. I n contradistinction t o the other translation quoted here, this seems to be an attempt (albeit a n o t very successfully one) accurately t o render the Greek .
150 151

3. Likewise, in t h e third sentence of his recension St. Jerome has credebatur esse Christus, whereas the Greek vulgate recension has . Credebatur corresponds to inan in Michael's text; as we have seen, let alia in Agapius is in all probability a n o t very felicitous translation of t h e somewhat ambiguous Syriac word.

150 T h e text o f the so-called Egesippus ( , 12) reads gentilium

plurimi. XXIX,

151 T o q u o t e but o n e example, St. Jerome, i n De Viris Illustribus, Oratio ad Graecos) a s Contra Gentes.

translates the title o f Tatian's w o r k " (usually k n o w n a s

4. In the last sentence of his recension St. Jerome has usque hodie, whereas the Greek vulgate recension has vvv. The Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica and M i c h a e l have //// our day or till this day, which corresponds t o usque hodie. Both in Latin and in Syriac it is possible to translate the Greek expression without referring to this day or t o our day. As far as Syriac is concerned, this may be illustrated by the rendering of this sentence in the Theophania. Of these four points only the third is intrinsically significant. But the three taken in conjunction tend to suggest that Michael's recension, attested in the twelfth century, forms a sort of counterpart to what has been described as St. Jerome's 'sceptical' version. A s St. Jerome's Latin version could not have influenced Michael's text, this r e s e m b l a n c e might indicate that both, in spite of their differences, are, in the last analysis, derived from the same Greek (or, less probably, Aramaic) r e c e n s i o n . This supposition would, of course, be, inter alia,
152 1 5 3 1 5 4 155 156

152 There are several variants, but n o n e o f them c o m e s c l o s e t o the expression used i n St. Jerome's recension. 153 In Agapius' recension the corresponding sentence is missing. 154 T h e adjective is n o t quite appropriate. A s has been p o i n t e d out, the p o s i t i o n o f this version with regard t o Jesus' Messiahship is n o n - c o m mittal. 155 O n e should n o t , however, l o s e sight o f the differences between the t w o recensions; cf., for instance, St. Jerome's phrase Cumque nostrorum principum cruci eum Pilatus addixisset ing passage i n Michael's recension. 156 It is a curious fact that another relatively early Latin version o f the T e s t i m o n i u m that o f the so-called Egesippus has points o f resemblance t o Michael's and A g a p i u s ' recensions. W e have seen that the first o f these recensions indubitably states that Jesus died, and that A g a p i u s ' recension should probably b e emended s o as t o include this statement, which is missing in other recensions. Egesippus' recension d o e s n o t contain an express statement o n this p o i n t , but it d o e s refer explicitly t o Jesus' death: qui apparuerit mortis discipulis suis post triduum triduum vivens iter um (II, 12). T h e f o r m o f the expression post invidia with the correspond-

tantamount t o a rejection of the notion put forward by Tannguy Lefvre, . . . Eichstadt, . Norden, . Goethals and H . S . J . T h a c k e r a y , that the verb credebatur in the phrase credebatur esse Christus was added by St. Jerome himself with a view t o rendering somewhat less improbable Josephus' proclaimed a u t h o r s h i p of the Testimonium as found in the Greek vulgate recension ; to this extent St. Jerome's version would be rehabilitated. As we have seen, the hypothesis that Michael's recension is, by and large, the result of a contamination of the vulgate recension of the Testimonium with Agapius' recension has m u c h t o recommend it. It cannot, however (or at least not without some elaboration), account for the fact, pointed out above, that St. Jerome's version is closer to Michael's than t o Agapius'. Can we accordingly draw the conclusion that Michael's version reflects more accurately than Agapius' the hypothetical original text of the recension in question? In the context of our discussion the most significant differences between the two are found in the first two sentences of the Testimonium and in the sentence concerning the appearance after the crucifixion: as we have seen, Agapius' text states that they (i.e. the disciples) reported that he had appeared, i.e. the a u t h o r does not affirm that this appearance really did happen ; the text is non-committal. In Michael's recension the word reported - dhakar does not occur. As there is a close connection between Agapius' version and Michael's, the resemblance between the latter and St. Jerome's text might, if one tried out all possible solutions, lead to the
157 158

mortis is reminiscent o f the corresponding phrase i n Agapius' recension: Bet da thalthat ayym min salbihi - three days after his crucifixion Historia days. (literally: after three days from Ecclesiastica and Michael read his crucifixion). T h e Greek vulgate re-

c e n s i o n reads ; 157 See Eisler, p . 68, n. 2 .

the Syriac translation o f 3

par snVn

p -

after three

158 W h i c h the above-mentioned scholars d o n o t believe in.

conclusion that the distinctive traits of Agapius' version might have been produced in the Syriac or Arabic period. However, during this period the Testimonium was being transmitted by Christian historiographers. Agapius and also, as far as we can judge, his sources accept in a very devout spirit all the legendary stories concerning the life of Jesus. To me it is inconceivable that he or they could of their own accord have added the sceptical or non-committal note represented by the word reported, or weakened the references to Jesus' extraordinary qualities and actions occurring in the first two sentences of the vulgate recension. They must have found the distinctive characteristics of Agapius' recension in the text of the Testimonium handed down t o them. Possibly, both St. Jerome's and Michael's recensions are the result of the contamination in varying degrees of the vulgate text of the Testimonium with the non-committal text represented by Agapius' version. There might also be other, even more complicated, solutions. But all this is mere guesswork. One point is, however, certain. As far as the enquiry concerning the original text of the Testimonium is concerned, the importance of what used t o be regarded as St. Jerome's freak recension and of the Oriental recensions, that of Agapius and that of Michael, is enhanced by their points of r e s e m b l a n c e .
159

From what work of Josephus is the Testimonium as quoted by Agapius supposed t o be extracted and what were the intermediate links, if any, in the chain of transmission? The first question has been touched u p o n in a note above, but certain of its aspects have not yet been examined. As we know, the vulgate Greek text occurs in Josephus' Antiquitates, XVIII, 63-64; it also appears in some MSS of Bellum Judaicum. In theory, at least, the possibility that it was found in other lost or

159 It has already been n o t e d that there c a n b e n o question o f St. Jerome's Latin text having influenced these Oriental recensions.

apocryphal works of Josephus cannot be rejected out of hand. We have seen that according to the M S of Agapius the Testimonium is extracted from a work of Josephus referred t o as his treatises, written about the evil of the Jews-sharr al-Yahd. Sharr - evil is clearly corrupt and should be emended. Vasiliev translates les guerres des Juifs ; apparently he emended sharr t o hurub. If accepted, this might mean that the Testimonium is said by Agapius t o be extracted from Josephus' Bellum Judaicum. However, this emendation is, to my mind, unacceptable for two reasons, one of which carries much less weight t h a n the other. This subsidiary argument depends on the fact t h a t Josephus' historical work Bellum Judaicum does not seem t o be known t o Agapius under this name. He refers t o it as the book that he [Josephus] wrote about the destruction of Jerusalem - 'al kharab Urshalim} The main argument, part of which has been already set forth above, is more complex and seems to me t o show very clearly that o n the balance of possibilities the corrupt title of a work of Josephus mentioned
160 1 6 1 62

160 Op. cit., p . 4 7 1 ; see above, n. 15. 161 See e d . C h e i k h o , p . 2 5 4 . 162 T h i s n a m e is t o s o m e extent reminiscent o f the titles: -Of Jewish Captivity; History about City, L - About the Captivity N i e s e ' s e d i t i o n o f Bellum Destructione, of Judah and of the Great Judaicum,
1

' see even de

- Of Jewish

the Captivity; Historiae

p p . x i v - x v , x v n . It is

m o r e reminiscent o f the Latin superscription, Judaicae (see N i e s e , op. cit., p . xrv).

f o u n d i n a M S bearing the Greek title m e n t i o n e d last

T h e title m e n t i o n e d by A g a p i u s is, by and large, identical with that o f the so-called Egesippus' Latin adaptation o f Josephus' work, namely, De Excidio Jerusalem (On the Destruction Judaicum of Jerusalem); there are also m i n o r variants o f this Latin title. T h e title o f the Old Russian translat i o n o f Josephus' Bellum Istoriya Yudeyskoy probably belongs t o the s a m e Perevode, Moscow-Lenintradition as the Greek titles m e n t i o n e d a b o v e ; see N . A . Mescerskiy, Voyny Drevnerusskom grad 1958, p . 3 6 ; p . 37, n. 4 5 .

by Agapius in the introduction t o the Testimonium refers t o Josephus' Antiquitates. The argument is based o n the following considerations: 1. In another passage of Agapius, which will be presently quoted and which unmistakably refers to Josephus' Antiquitates, the first two words of the t i t l e of this work are tadbr alYahd - governance of the Jews. 2. The corruption of tadbr t o sharr (in the title sharr al-Yahd in Agapius' introduction t o the Testimonium) is graphically conceivable. 3. According t o Michael's Syriac version of the Testimonium, which, as we have seen, has some sort of connection with Agapius' version, the quotation is said t o be extracted from a work of Josephus entitled JPTPI (rendered above Institution, or Institutions, of the Jews). As has been noted, the word is very obviously derived from the same verbal root as the Arabic tadbr. The latter word may very easily be supposed t o have been used t o translate anaVT. The conclusion to be drawn from the last two points is that sharr al-Yahd in Agapius' M S should probably be emended to tadbr al-Yahd. The passage of Agapius referred t o in consideration ( 1 ) reads as follows: When the Romans were [about to] conquer Jerusalem, Josephus exhorted his people before the destruction (kharb) of Jerusalem, saying to them: 'Submit to the Romans and give obedience to their kings. You will [then] praise your future state of [affairs].' [The Jews] despised and reviled him [so much] that they tried many times to strike him, and they cast stones at him. The Romans were informed with reference to him of these [happenings]. When they got hold of him, they gave him a post at the king's gate. He then composed twenty books on the
1 6 3 164 165

163 O r : description o f the contents. 164 Literally: enter into the erally: attached. obedience. lit165 T h e translation is n o t quite certain. T h e Arabic w o r d is alzamhu;

governance of the Jews [tadbr al-Yahd], their migration and their high priests, and about the wars of the Romans and their capture [ghazw] of Jerusalem. Sixty-two letters of Agrippa [Gh.rfs] were in existence; in these he praised Josephus' works, great knowledge and [excellent] execution. After his [Josephus*] death the Romans erected in his honour a statue in Rome. The brief mention of the exhortations of Josephus and the reactions of the Jews t o them in this passage corresponds to Bellum Judaicum, V, 114, 261, 361-420, 541-547; VI, 94-112, 118, 129, 365. However, Agapius makes a mistake: the remonstrances of Josephus were made after his surrender to the R o m a n s , and Agapius places them, as we have seen, before Josephus' capture. The last portion of the passage bears to some extent upon our enquiry. The reference to Agrippa's letters corresponds to Josephus' Vita, 364-367, and also to a passage in Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, I I I , 9. According to Eusebius, these letters are referred t o at the end of the Antiquitates. In the same chapter Eusebius mentions the erection of a statue in Rome in honour of Josephus and also the fact that the Antiquitates are divided into twenty b o o k s . In fact, this chapter of Eusebius might be regarded as by and large the only source of the last portion of Agapius, provided that the reference to the work 'Al tadbr al- Yahdis not taken into account. For convenience's sake it is repeated here: He then composed twenty books on the governance of the Jews [tadbr al-Yahd], their migration and their high priests and about the wars of the Romans and their capture [ghazw] of Jerusalem. This may be compared with the brief reference in Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, I I I , 9, which
167 1 6 8 169

166

166 Or: transmitters

of traditions

- n.q.la.

If the w o r d is emended t o naql,

it m i g h t b e rendered tradition,

narration.

167 A g a p i u s , ed. C h e i k h o , p p . 2 5 4 - 2 5 5 . It has been partly translated a b o v e . 168 T h i s fact c o u l d , o f course, b e ascertained by whoever had access to the full text o f the w o r k as w e k n o w it. 169 O r : transmitter of tradition; or: tradition.

reads in t h e Syriac t r a n s l a t i o n

170

as follows:

3 im

nnra m m mirrn Kmjrr TOITI . p a o p o s a rnnrm rnip KSDtPS - i f e [ / ^ / ? A W ^ ] compiled the whole ancient history of the Jews in twenty books, and the story of the wars of the Romans, which occurred in his days, in seven. Another relevant passage occurs a t the beginning of Josephus' Antiquitates, I, 2: " * , " , , ' , * . , .And now I have undertaken this present work in the belief that all the Greeks will find it worthy of attention; for it will embrace our entire ancient history and political constitution translated from the Hebrew records. I had, indeed, ere now, when writing the history of the war, already contemplated describing the origin of the Hebrews, the fortunes that befell them, the great lawgiver under whom they were trained in piety and the exercise of the other virtues, and all those wars waged by them during lengthy periods before this last, in which they were involuntarily engaged against the Romans. However, since the compass of such a
9 9 9 111

170 W h i c h i n this case is o n the w h o l e quite accurate. T h e Greek original reads: ,

9

'

171 T h e Greek h a s the singular.

theme was excessive, I made the war into a separate work with its own beginning and end, thus duly proportioning my work. The mention by Agapius of the fact that the work on tadbr al-Yahd consists of twenty books does not leave much room for doubt that Josephus' Antiquitates is meant. The question as t o the ultimate sources of Agapius' description of this work remains, however, unresolved. The account in this work of the wars of the R o m a n s and the capture of Jerusalem might possibly be derived from the first sentence in the Greek passage of Josephus' Antiquitates, that has just been quoted. Some excerpter might have paid no attention t o the fact that in the sentence t h a t follows, Josephus makes it clear that he decided t o deal with the subjects he had in mind in two works rather t h a n one, and t h a t the ancient history and constitution of the Jews would n o t be set forth in the volume describing the R o m a n War and the final capture of J e r u s a l e m . The fact that the passage of Agapius refers t o data concerning high priests found in Josephus' Antiquitates, whereas neither Josephus n o r Eusebius refer t o these data in their portrayal of this work, does not of itself permit a far-reaching conclusion, but it does suggest that Agapius' description does not entirely derive from these characteristics. The m o s t significant features of this description are: 1. It contains n o clear reference t o Josephus' Antiquitates, the (or, as the Syriac recension of Historia Ecclesiastica reads: * ), i.e. the subject after which the work was called in most known sources. It is true that the word n.q.la. in the passage of Agapius, if emended to naql
112 173 3 174

172 Except for slight modifications, I have f o l l o w e d Thackeray's translation. 173 It is, however, likewise possible that the words under discussion i n A g a p i u s ' passage refer t o various wars o f the R o m a n s including the capture o f Jerusalem by P o m p e y dealt w i t h i n Josephus' Antiquitates. 174 O r : ' .

and interpreted as meaning tradition, might be regarded, though rather doubtfully, as reflecting . But even if this rather dubious supposition is accepted, the most conspicuous fact about Agapius' description of the Antiquitates is and this is the second point I wish t o make that it is headed by the words 'al tadbr al- Yahd, which look as if they were the title of the work. This impression is of course confirmed by the fact t h a t Michael the Syrian refers t o the work in which the Testimonium occurs as 3. As has been indicated, the Arabic tadbr corresponds in our context to m a n and is quite certainly a translation of this Syriac term. As we have seen, there are also good grounds for emending the words al sharr al-Yahd, found in Agapius' M S , as the title of the work of Josephus from which the Testimonium is extracted to 'al tadbr al-Yahd. We are thus faced with a tradition in which Josephus' Antiquitates was called On the Institutions of the Jews or On the Governance of the Jews. In my opinion, the Syriac m a n and the Arabic tadbr, which renders it, have not been chosen arbitrarily t o characterize and name this work of Josephus; in their various connotations these terms correspond fairly accurately to , which is mentioned by Josephus in the passage quoted a b o v e , where he sets forth the main themes of his Antiquitates. In this passage follows immediately upon . The tradition with regard t o the title of Josephus' Antiquitates that is followed by Agapius and Michael the Syrian can thus be explained, though n o t legitimated, by a reference to Josephus. Nevertheless it is a singular tradition; as far as I know, no
e lls 176 177

175 There can, o f course, b e n o absolute certainty i n this matter. 176 Antiquitates, I, 2 . ( 1 , 1 0 ) seems t o imply that w a s contained i n the Pentateuch. 177 A passage i n Josephus' Antiquitates

author except the two that have been mentioned refers t o Josephus' Antiquitates by the title On the Institutions of the Jews or On the Governance of the Jews. J o s e p h u s and E u s e b i u s certainly do not do so, nor does O r i g e n . A s we know, this singularity is paralleled by another: Agapius and, t o some extent, Michael the Syrian present recensions of the Testimonium which markedly differ from the vulgate version and are said t o be c u l l e d from On the Institutions of the Jews or from On the Governance of the Jews. Thus, the unusual titles given t o Josephus' work and these unusual recensions seem t o go together; apparently they belong (in the case of Michael's recension this may apply only to its divergencies from the vulgate) t o the same historiographical tradition. N o w we k n o w that this tradition does not derive from the known recensions of Josephus' works or of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, i.e. from the sources that account for much of the historical data concerning, loosely speaking, the period of the Second Temple, nor is it, as far as we know, attested in other extant texts. We may accordingly assume that an unknown source was used by Agapius. Possibly a study of the portion of his work concerned with the period in question may throw some light on the character of this source. I n the present study, we must
178 180 181 1 8 2

179

178 I n Contra Apionem, t o h i s Antiquitates'. Historia

I, 1 ; I, 2 , Josephus makes the f o l l o w i n g references . . . ... i n Eusebius' and the sec .. . . . ,...

> '

179 Cf., for instance, the references t o Josephus' Antiquitates Ecclesiastica, contains the w o r d s o n d the w o r d s 180 Cf. Contra . Celsum, Josephus' Antiquitates'. 181 In the case o f Michael. '
9

I, 1 0 : 4 ; I, 1 1 : 4 ; the first o f these passages , .

1

I, 47, which contains the f o l l o w i n g reference t o -

T h i s title is a l s o generally used by later authors.

182 If w e accept the e m e n d a t i o n o f A g a p i u s ' text p r o p o s e d a b o v e .

in the main confine ourselves t o an examination of the passage in Agapius that immediately follows upon the Testimonium. However, a few remarks on the passage immediately preceding the Testimonium seem t o be called for. This passage, which has been quoted above, deals with the portents that were witnessed at the time of the crucifixion, and, u p o n Pilate's dismissal, were supposed t o be a consequence of the crucifixion. Quite clearly this information does not derive either from Josephus or from Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica. A reference t o Phlegon, whose name is corrupted in this passage to Iflafin, was, as we have s e e n , found in Eusebius' Chronicon. However, this passage of Agapius also refers in this connection to the testimony of a 'philosopher' named r.s.y.w.s. * N o parallel
183 18

183 See above, n. 9. 184 T h e n a m e , as given b y A g a p i u s , m a y also b e read i n various other w a y s ; cf. above, n. 11, and Chabot's reading o f the same n a m e i n M i chael's text. Michael the Syrian also brackets together the testimonies o f P h l e g o n and Or.s.y.w.s. Chabot's translation o f the relevant passage profane, crit ainsi: le soleil s'est temps les morts ont ressuscit, livre: sont entrs Jruanne de la entire Ursinus quand terribles reads as follows : Phlegon, philosophe obscurci, et la terre a trembl; des Olympiades, IHe Olympiade, furent branles, le soleil s'obscurcit

salem et ont maudit les Juifs. Dans Vouvrage qu'il crivit sur les il dit dans le XHIe il y eut une obscurit et beaucoup d'autres et la terre trembla. la quatrime

la sixime heure du jour, un venendroits furent renverss. dans une grande angoisse On entendit des clameurs l'empereur

dredi, et les toiles apparurent.

Nice et la rgion de Bithynie tout

dit aussi dans le livre V: Nous fmes dans les villes des Hbreux; par la lettre que Pilate terrifiantes.'

nous l'apprenons

maintenant et nous le voyons Tibre. Il dit: choses la il survint des

envoya de Palestine

*A la mort d'un homme que les Juifs on crucifi En apprenant cela Csar destitua

Pilate pour avoir fait

volont des Juifs, et il menaa ceux-ci ( M i c h e l le Syrien, I, p p . 143-144). T h i s passage is clearly connected w i t h the parallel text o f A g a p i u s , but d o e s n o t derive from it, as its q u o t a t i o n from P h l e g o n is m u c h longer. T h e reference i n Michael's q u o t a t i o n t o Bithynia and N i c e a , n o t f o u n d i n the parallel passage i n A g a p i u s , is paralleled i n the quotat i o n from P h l e g o n contained i n Eusebius' Chronicon version, loc. cit., (in the Armenian Both as well as i n that o f St. Jerome, loc. cit.).

to this reference occurs in Eusebius' Chronicon. It may be noted t h a t Syncellus, quoting Julius Africanus, refers, in speaking of the literary testimonies t o the portents at the time of the crucifixion, not only t o Phlegon, but also t o T h a l l u s . However, even if one abstracts from the difference of the names, the statement attributed t o Thallus has n o characteristic traits in common with the quotation from Vr.s.y.w.s., which, inter alia, purports t o give a passage from a letter sent by Pilate t o Tiberius. One of the pseudepigraphical letters supposedly sent by Pilate t o the R o m a n emperor contains a remark that also occurs in the passage of Agapius. In both texts Pilate states that Jesus was crucified by the J e w s . All this is inconclusive. As regards the ultimate source or sources of the passage in Agapius that comes before the Testimonium, the insufficiency of the evidence renders it impossible not only t o prove the correctness of a hypothesis, but even t o form o n e .
185 186 187 1 8 8

A g a p i u s ' a n d Michael's q u o t a t i o n m a y derive from a c o m m o n Syriac source, possibly T h e o p h i l o s . 185 Cf. Labriolle, op. cit. (above, n. 10), p p . 2 0 9 - 2 1 0 . 186 However, the letter i n question is said t o have been addressed b y Pilate t o Claudius and n o t t o Tiberius. It is included i n the Grelle Acta Apostolorum Apocrypha, edited by R . A . Lipsius & M . Bonnet, im Zeitalter der Neutestamentlichen I : Acta Petri et Pauli, 4 0 - 4 2 , ed. Lipsius, Darmstadt 1959, p p . 1 9 6 - 1 9 7 ; cf. W . Bauer, Das Leben Apokryphen, Jesu Darmstadt 1967, p . 190. h a s a resemblance t o that o f Orosius, the Latin

187 T h e i m m e d i a t e source m a y h a v e been T h e o p h i l o s ' Syriac chronicle. 188 T h e n a m e r.s.y.w.s. historian, w h o s e w o r k w a s translated i n t o Arabic approximately at the t i m e w h e n A g a p i u s wrote h i s work. H i s n a m e is mostly altered i n Arabic t o H . u r s . y.w.s.,but sio', Miscellanea at least i n o n e text it is written , M i l a n o 1951 (Fontes Urus.y.w.s.; Ambrosiani, as see G. Levi D e l i a Vida, 'La Tradizione araba delle storie di O r o G. Galbiati, X X V I I ) , p . 188; p . 189, n. 4 . Moreover, A g a p i u s describes Ur.s.y.w.s.

a n historian. H o w e v e r , there are difficulties that seem t o preclude this identification: (1) A g a p i u s ' work probably antedates the A r a b i c translation o f Orosius (see Levi D e l i a Vida, op. cit., p p . 187-188), a n d

The position is somewhat different with regard t o the passage, likewise quoted above, that follows immediately u p o n Agapius' version of the Testimonium. Quite clearly this passage has a curious relation to Josephus' Antiquitates and to Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica. I n this connection we may recall that it is in consequence of a comparison of texts of Agapius with these two works that we have assumed the existence of an u n k n o w n source, X. As has been stated above, the passage in question begins with the w o r d s : wa-yaqlu ay dan - And he also says. As these words follow immediately u p o n a quotation from Josephus, namely the T e s t i m o n i u m , the natural interpretation would be that they are meant t o introduce another quotation from Josephus. However, as we shall presently see, the contents of the passage are not consistent with this supposition; the author of the text was quite obviously a Christian. Indeed, there are good reasons for thinking that the ultimate source of the passage may be the Historia Ecclesiastica of Eusebius, who is explicitly quoted in a
189

T h e o p h i l o s , w h o m , as regards the passage i n question, w e suppose t o b e the c o m m o n source o f A g a p i u s and Michael the Syrian, antedates it t o a m u c h greater extent. (2) T h e passage quoted b y A g a p i u s a n d Michael occurs neither i n the Latin original o f Orosius' w o r k n o r i n the Arabic version, w h i c h , moreover, contains m a n y interpolations. It might, o f course, be argued that there might have existed a n earlier Arabic or Syriac translation o f Orosius, which might have included the passage in question, but, i n the absence o f any confirmatory evidence, this w o u l d b e a very far-fetched and unsatisfactory solution. There is also the possibility that b o t h A g a p i u s ' and Michael's writing o f the n a m e r.s.y.w.s., o r s o m e variant o f it, is w r o n g ; according t o this h y p o by s o m e o n e w h o w a s familiar with thesis the n a m e o f the historians w h o m these t w o authors q u o t e might h a v e b e e n corrupted to Vr.s.y.w.s. the n a m e o f Orosius. T h i s w o u l d parallel the corruption o f P h l e g o n t o Iflfn (Plato) found i n A g a p i u s (see above, n. 8). O n the evidence at our disposal there is n o w a y o f proving o r disproving this hypothesis. 189 A s w e have seen, A g a p i u s explicitly states that this text occurs i n a work o f Josephus.

text of Agapius dealing with A b g a r , which immediately follows upon the passage with which we are concerned. In fact, the latter passage which in Agapius comes immediately after the Testimonium and is translated above shows both a marked similarity t o and significant divergencies from a text in Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 10. A comparison of the two texts is instructive. Agapius (ed. Cheikho), p. 239, 1. 16 to p. 240, 1. 3
1 9 1

190

Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica, 1,10: 2 - 6

1 9 2

And he also says that all the public activity of our Lord Christ, may he be glorified, ... occurred under the high priesthood of Hannn and Qayf. For [the two] were high priests in those years; I mean [to say that his public activity occurred] from the high priesthood of Qayf. The time between

The divine Scripture says that he [Jesus] completed the whole time of his teaching while Annas and Caiaphas were high priests, showing that the whole time of his teaching was bounded by the years which cover their administration. Since, then, he began in the high priesthood of Annas and continued to the reign of

190 T h i s text (Agapius, ed. C h e i k h o , p . 2 4 0 , 1 . 4 , t o p . 2 4 2 , 1 . 4 . ) deals with the exchange o f letters between Abgar, k i n g o f Edessa, and Jesus; a n d w i t h Abgar's subsequent conversion, the letter he wrote t o the Emperor Tiberius and Tiberius' answer. It is introduced by the w o r d s : [sb.ys], the bishop of Caesarea, sponds t o the tale o f Abgar recounted i n Eusebius' Historia Eusebius has said. T h e text roughly correEcclesiastica, Historia Historia Jesus, to

1 , 1 3 . H o w e v e r , the divergencies are very considerable. T h e manner o f telling the story is different i n the t w o texts. Furthermore, the Ecclesiastica Ecclesiastica, . practiser and Tiberius. In h i s letter t o Jesus, Abgar, according t o the I n A g a p i u s ' text the f o r m of address is in does n o t refer t o the exchange o f letters between A b g a r addresses h i m as [al-mutatabbib], who has appeared

of medicine

Jerusalem.

M a n y examples o f such divergencies c o u l d be cited. 191 T h e text has been translated and annotated a b o v e . 192 K i r s o p p Lake's translation.

these two [dates] does not Caiaphas, the intervening amount to four years. For time does not extend to a full when Herod had charge of four years. For since the them, he burnt the genealogies regulations were at that time of their tribes, in order that already in process of it should not be known that destruction, the rule had been he [was descended] from relaxed by which the duties of undistinguished people. He the service of God were held [also] took the priestly vestfor life and by inherited ment and put it under his succession, and the Roman seal. And he did not allow governors entrusted the high anyone of the high priests to priesthood at different times officiate as such for more than to different men, who did not one year. For this [reason] hold this office for more than there came up four high one year. Moreover, Josephus [priests] in the [interval of relates that four high priests time] between the high intervened in succession priesthood of Hannn and between Annas and Caiaphas that of Qayf. For after the and speaks as follows in the dismissal of Hannn, Ismail, text of the Antiquities the son of Yahy, took [XVIII, 34-35]: 'Valerius his place. When he had Gratus, having deprived finished his year and quitted Ananus of the priesthood, his [office], Eliezer, the son of appoints as high priest Hannn the high priest, Ishmael, the son of Phabi. replaced him. After he had Him, too, he removes shortly terminated his year, Simon, and nominates as high priest the son of Qamhd, ' sucEliezer, the son of Ananus the ceeded him. Then came after high priest. But when a year him [and in his place] had passed he removes him Qayf, on whose order and also and hands over the high under whose high priesthood priesthood to Simon, the son
193 194

193 This n a m e is substituted for s o m e f o r m o f Phabi; see above, n. 4 0 . 194 F o r the correct f o r m o f the n a m e see above, n. 46.

our Lord the Messiah, may he be glorified, was crucified. Thus the time between Hannn and Qayf does not [amount] to more than four years.
195

of Camithus. But neither did his tenure of office last for more than a year, and Josephus, who is also [called] Caiaphas, was his successor' Thus the whole time of the teaching of our Saviour is shown to be not even a full four years; since from Annas to the appointment of Caiaphas in four years four high priests held the yearly office.

As this comparison shows, there is a n evident connection between the two texts, for their central theme is one and the same. Both seek t o prove, by referring t o an identical list of four successive high p r i e s t s , each of whom is said to have been appointed for one year only, that Jesus' public activity did not last full four years. This connection can also be demonstrated by the fact that the first sentence in the passage from Eusebius solves the difficulty presented in the first sentence of the passage from Agapius. The meaning of the two sentences is substantially the same, except for one p o i n t : Eusebius introduces the sentence with the words The divine Scripture says, whereas Agapius begins the passage with the words And he also says, which, as noted above, d o n o t make sense in the context. There can be no doubt, I think, that originally the sentence began, as in Eusebius' text, with the words The divine [or holy] Scripture says, and that at some stage in the transmission owing t o the error of a
196 191

195 A s stated above, the M S has aqall - less, w h i c h is a n o b v i o u s error. 196 K n o w n t o Eusebius f r o m Josephus' Antiquitates, 197 T h e Greek text has . t i o n o f Eusebius' Historia says ( p . 44). Ecclesiastica t o which he refers. T h e Syriac translaScripture

reads For the holy

compiler or a scribe the words The divine Scripture were omitted. O n this supposition also the word aydan was inserted in the phrase wa-qala aydan, in order t o give the mutilated phrase a semblance of meaning. In the light of Eusebius' text, Agapius' first sentence i n the passage under discussion should read The holy Scripture says that all the public activity of our Lord Christ, may he be glorified, occurred under the high priesthood of Hannn and Qayf. Two pieces of information contained in this passage of Agapius do n o t appear in the corresponding text of Eusebius, but occur elsewhere in the Historia Ecclesiastica, from where they were doubtless taken over either by Agapius, or, more probably, by the author of the Syriac Chronicle which he used. Thus, the fact that they are included in the Arabic passage under discussion cannot by any means serve as an argument against the view that the passage is essentially based upon the Historia Ecclesiastica. These two pieces of information are: 1. Herod... burnt the genealogies of their tribes in order that it should not be known that he was descended from undistinguished people. This incident is mentioned by Eusebius, who quotes Africanus; see Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 7 : 1 3 . 2. [Herod] took the priestly vestment and put it under his seal. This action of Herod is likewise recounted by Eusebius {Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 6:10), who quotes J o s e p h u s . O n one point, and one only, Agapius refers, in the passage in question, t o a fact that is not found either in the Historia Ecclesiastica or in Josephus. F r o m Josephus' Antiquitates, X V I I I , 33-35, it may be seen that the high priests appointed by the R o m a n procurator Gratus did not hold their office for more t h a n a year. On the basis of this text Eusebius states in the passage of the Historia Ecclesiastica quoted above that the
196 199

198 O r :

divine. X V I I I , 9 2 - 9 3 . It is clear that i n this case A g a p i u s (or

199 Cf. Antiquitates,

h i s Syriac source) quotes Eusebius rather than Josephus directly.

Roman governors entrusted the high priesthood at different times to different men, who did not hold this office for more than one year. Neither Josephus nor the Historia Ecclesiastica in the recension known t o us states that the practice t o appoint high priests for one year only was already introduced by H e r o d , as is explicitly asserted by Agapius: And he did not allow anyone of the high priests to officiate as such for more than one year. We are accordingly faced with a conundrum, for some plausible explanation must be found for the fact that one single statement in the passage in Agapius does not ultimately derive from the Historia Ecclesiastica as it is known t o us. But for the existence of this statement, this work of Eusebius could have been regarded as the obvious source of the whole p a s s a g e .
2 0 0 201

2 0 0 Josephus, w h e n speaking o f Herod's policy with regard t o the appointment o f h i g h priests, states that this policy w a s also f o l l o w e d by the R o m a n s , but he d o e s n o t refer i n this text to the limitation o f the high priests' tenure o f office t o o n e year. See Antiquitates, Herod, priests, to some After when the kingdom was committed doned the practice insignificant of appointing persons those of Asamonaean of Aristobulus, who were merely ceased XX, 247-250: abanhigh office lineage as the to him by the Romans, alone assigned of priestly the high son of high priests, of the Herod's

and, with the exception Aristobulus* death Herod

descent... priesthood Archelaus as did Jews. up to city seven

to entrust

to the descendants also followed the Romans

of the sons of Asamonaios. in the appointment from

a similar policy

after him when they took over the government

Now those who held the high priesthood the day on which Titus captured numbered years twenty-eight

the times of Herod

and set fire to the temple and the

in all, covering a period of one hundred and

(transi. L . H . F e l d m a n ) . T h e fact that n e w high priests were

a p p o i n t e d every year is also referred t o i n the Talmudic literature; the passages are quoted and discussed i n G . A l o n , bCW* {Studies that year: (xviii: 13). 201 T h e fact that the Historia Ecclesiastica w a s i n all probability n o t the immediate source o f the passage that m a y have been taken f r o m the in Jewish History),

nnVina Dnpna
of

I, Jerusalem 1957, p p . 48 if. This fact also (xi: 4 9 ) ;

accounts for the references i n the G o s p e l o f John to the high priest (xi: 5 1 ) ;

It may be noted that a similar statement concerning Herod's policy occurs in Michael the Syrian's Chronicle. In J . B . Chabot's translation it reads: / / y eut trois grandsprtres aprs Hannan jusqu' Caphe: Ismal, Elazar et Simeon. Puis vint Josephe qui est Caphe. Hrode, en effet, ne laissait chacun d'eux en fonction que pendant un an. This statement seems t o suggest that Herod was a contemporary of the three high priests who are named; this could be due either to confusion of Herod the Great with his namesake, who reigned at the time of Jesus' public activity, or t o the chronicler's unthinkingly copying his sources without any effort t o make some sense out of them. The passage of Agapius is, I think, less confused, or, at least, the confusion is less evident. Nevertheless, but for one factor, it could easily be argued that the statement that Herod did not permit high priests to hold their office for more t h a n one year should be imputed t o a scribe's error or to a compiler's or translator's mistake and that, in the last analysis, it resulted from a corruption or misunderstanding of the relevant passages of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica. The factor that does not permit this facile solution is a passage of another work of Eusebius, Demonstratio, VIII, 2:99. In this passage Eusebius explicitly states that Herod was the first the Romans following his example t o appoint high p r i e s t s , contrary t o the Law, and t o traffic in the office, giving it t o common and undistinguished men and changing the incumbents every
202 2 0 3 204

Syriac chronicle used by A g a p i u s hardly affects the difficulty m e n t i o n e d a b o v e . W h o e v e r i n the first place c o m p i l e d the passage appears to have derived all statements but o n e from the Historia 2 0 2 I, p . 143. 203 T h i s interpretation presupposes that the sentence should b e construed according to ordinary syntactic rules. 2 0 4 T h e text has - priests, sense. but i n the context o n l y high priests makes Ecclesiastica.

year. A few lines further on Eusebius quotes the passage of Josephus' Antiquitates X V I I I , 34-35, also found in the text of the Historia Ecclesiastica cited above, concerning the appointments and dismissals of high priests by Valerius Gratus. A case could be made out for the supposition that the statements in this passage concerning the policy, which are not found in our recension of Josephus' Antiquitates, are inferences from Antiquitates, X X , 247, where Josephus asserts that the R o m a n s followed Herod's policy in the appointment of high priests, combined with Antiquitates, XVIII, 34-35, where Josephus describes Valerius G r a t u s ' practices in this matter. It may, however, also be argued that the passage shows that, when writing this passage of the Demonstratio, Eusebius used some historical t e x t unknown t o us, where he found, inter alia, the explicit statement that Herod, like the R o m a n s , appointed a high priest for one year only; a statement which, as we have
9 2 0 6

205

205 . . . ,

' , ,

. Ecclesiastica i n regard to the t i m e w h e n

A l o n {pp. cit., . 200, p . 58, . 37) considers that Eusebius' o p i n i o n , as expressed i n the Historia high priests b e g a n t o b e appointed for o n e year only, is incorrect. H e considers that Herod, rather than a n y o n e else, must have been responsible for this i n n o v a t i o n , and quotes, i n order t o corroborate h i s view, A g a p i u s a n d Bar Hebraeus' Chronicon Chronicon Demonstratio Syriacum. Ecclesiasticum and It seems t o have escaped h i s notice that i n his Demonstratio Inscriptione

also Eusebius subscribes to this o p i n i o n . T h e trafficking

i n the h i g h priest's office m e n t i o n e d i n this passage o f the There is also a n allusion t o it i n J o h n Chrysostom, In Altaris cit., ( M i g n e , Patrologia Graeca, p . 58.

is also referred t o i n T a l m u d i c literature; see A l o n , op. cit., p p . 4 8 ff. LI, C o l . 73), quoted b y A l o n , op.

2 0 6 T h i s could, o f course, have been a slightly different text o f Josephus' Antiquitates', o r Eusebius m i g h t have drawn u p o n Julius Africanus, w h o , i n his turn, m a y , as suggested b y H . Gelzer (see below, n. 208), have occasionally m a d e use o f Justus o f Tiberias.

seen, does not occur in the Historia Ecclesiastica. But all this is, of course, mere speculation. The passage in Eusebius' Demonstratio does, however, lead to an indubitable conclusion: the statement of Agapius and Michael the Syrian that Herod limited the tenure of the office of the high priests he appointed cannot be due t o the mistake of an oriental compiler, translator or scribe, since this statement is already made by Eusebius; the suggestion mooted above is thus precluded. On the other hand, it is improbable that Agapius, Michael and the Syriac chroniclers they used t o o k over the statement concerning Herod's appointment of high priests from Eusebius' Demonstratio, which is not a historiographical work; there are, I think, strong grounds for supposing that they t o o k their information from historical works and not from theological treatises. Moreover, as we have seen, the passage in Agapius where the statement in question occurs derives in all other respects from the Historia Ecclesiastica. This might legitimate the hypothesis that the statement in question was also found in this w o r k : it might have appeared in a lost recension of it. This hypothesis is clearly strengthened by the fact that a similar statement concerning Herod's policy with regard to the appointment of high priests was inserted by Eusebius into another w o r k : the Demonstratio; the extant recension of the Historia Ecclesiastica is on this point inconsonant with the Demonstratio, but the hypothetical lost recension might have been in agreement with the latter. This line of reasoning can be followed u p : If there are strong arguments in favour of the surmise that an unknown recension of the Historia Ecclesiastica was the source of a piece of information concerning Herod found in Agapius and in Michael, it could also be argued that this recension might be source X whose existence was postulated above; it might be supposed that at some stage in its redaction the Historia Ecclesiastica
2 0 7

207 A s also o f Bar Hebraeus; see a b o v e , n. 205.

might have contained an unchristianized version of the Testimonium or one less Christianized than that of the vulgate (popularized by Eusebius) and that that version was used by Agapius, and to some extent by Michael the Syrian. This is, of course, only a glimmer of a possible solution a very hypothetical one to one of several problems posed by Agapius' version of the T e s t i m o n i u m .
208

208 T h e fact that A g a p i u s i n h i s account o f the period o f the Second T e m p l e used otherwise u n k n o w n material m a y be verified by a n exami n a t i o n o f the story o f the killing o f Herod's wife as related b y h i m : Herod died [while suffering] from great and bitter pain. And it is said broke out between Finally she started them. The exchange that he killed his wife, while she was sleeping in a bed with him. In fact, a quarrel of angry words went on and on. he went out of his mind, to rail at him. Thereupon

took a cushion, put it upon her face, sat upon it, and did not stand up until she was dead. After that he killed his own son [I e m e n d ibnatohu to ib~ nahu] and some of his relatives (ed. C h e i k h o , p . 140). (Bellum T h i s story is followed by a n account o f Herod's last illness, w h i c h is clearly derived from Josephus' t w o accounts o f this illness Judaicum, I, 6 5 6 ; Antiquitates, quoted i n Eusebius' Historia Bellum Judaicum, astica, Ecclesiastica, X V I I , 168-169), b o t h o f which are I, 8 : 5 - 9 . A g a p i u s also m e n Ecclesito kill I,

t i o n s i n this c o n n e c t i o n Herod's attempt t o kill himself recounted in I, 662, quoted by Eusebius i n h i s Historia I, 8 : 1 4 , and h i s order t o h i s sister S a l o m e (Shlm)

after h i s death the Jews assembled at the place where h e lay dying. T h i s is clearly derived from the story told i n Bellum 660 (cf. Antiquitates, Historia Ecclesiastica, I, 8 : 1 3 . I, 6 6 3 - 6 6 4 ; AntiJudaicum, X V I I , 174-177) and quoted by Eusebius i n his

T h e statement that H e r o d killed h i s o w n s o n seems t o refer t o the execution, recounted by Josephus (Bellum Judaicum, quitates, X V I I , 1 8 7 , 1 9 1 ) , o f Herod's s o n Antipater, ordered by H e r o d (Historia I, 8 : 1 5 ) d o e s n o t m e n t i o n the n a m e Antipater; h e merely

shortly before h e died. In referring to this event, Eusebius Ecclesiastica,

says that before his death H e r o d killed a legitimate s o n o f his. T h i s m a y b e a n indication that i n the passage under discussion A g a p i u s , o r rather h i s Syriac source, used Eusebius' Historia from Josephus, probably through the Ecclesiastica. Eusebius. T h u s m a n y elements i n this passage o f A g a p i u s appear to b e derived intermediary o f H o w e v e r , the story concerning the killing o f Herod's wife is n o t found

Another question is that of the relation, from the textual point of view, of this version t o the earliest pre-Eusebian recension of the Testimonium, the one which may it is a m o o t point have been composed by Josephus himself. In this connection, the relevant passages of Origen should be mentioned. In three passages Origen m e n t i o n s Josephus' allusions t o Jesus; all three refer to the description, found in Antiquitt es, X X , 200, of James as the brother of Jesus, who was called the Christ - , . In these passages Origen also remarks that Josephus was wrong (though according to Contra Celsum, 1,47, not far from the truth) in supposing that the condemnation
2 0 9 210 1

i n either o f these authors. Josephus gives t w o accounts {Bellum cum, 4 4 1 - 4 4 4 ; Antiquitates,

Judai-

X V , 2 1 8 - 2 3 9 ; cf. X V , 6 8 - 8 7 ) o f the execu-

t i o n o f H e r o d ' s wife Mariamne. These accounts differ from o n e a n other, but even m o r e s o from A g a p i u s ' story; in both, M a r i a m n e is killed by Herod's order, but n o t b y his o w n hand. Accordingly, this is another example o f A g a p i u s ' utilization o f a n u n k n o w n , possibly early source w i t h i n a passage that otherwise appears, i n the last analysis, to stem from Josephus as quoted by Eusebius. It m a y b e relevant t o point o u t that similar problems are p o s e d by the Byzantine historiographer Syncellus, w h o s e account o f the H a s m o n e a n period contains material that is n o t derived from Josephus. Gelzer m e n t i o n s the p o s sibility that this material m a y have occurred i n the historical work o f Josephus' contemporary and o p p o n e n t , Justus o f Tiberias; according t o this hypothesis, Syncellus' immediate source w a s Julius Africanus, w h o drew u p o n Justus, and w a s i n turn used by Syncellus; see H . Gelzer, Sextus Julius Africanus und die Byzantinische Chronographie, I, Leipzig 1880, p p . 2 5 6 - 2 6 5 , esp. p . 2 6 5 . Similar conjectures c a n clearly b e m a d e concerning the sources o f A g a p i u s ; possibly they could, at least t o s o m e extent, be corroborated or disproved, as the case m a y be, by m e a n s o f a detailed c o m p a r i s o n o f A g a p i u s ' historiography w i t h that o f Syncellus and other B y z a n tine historians. 209 C o m m e n t a r y o n M a t t h e w i : 17; Contra n u m " ', Revue Beige de Philologie 210 O r : the Messiah. Celsum, I, 4 7 ; , 13. T h e passages are quoted i n full by C. Martin, 'Le "Testimonium Flaviaet d'Histoire, X X (1941), p p . 4 1 9 - 4 2 0 .

of James brought about the capture of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple a n opinion that is also ascribed t o Josephus by E u s e b i u s , but which is not found in our text of the Antiquitates. According t o O r i g e n , Josephus should have p u t the blame for this national catastrophe on the Jewish attitude towards Jesus. I n two of these passages Origen also states that Josephus did not believe t h a t Jesus was the Messiah. According to Origen's commentary on Matthew i : 17, he did not accept our Jesus as the Messiah - ov . In Contra Celsum, 1,47, he says, speaking of J o s e p h u s , . . . though disbelieving in Jesus [regarded] as the Messiah - . . . D o these statements concerning the disbelief of Josephus in Jesus' Messiahship indicate that Origen had knowledge of a Testimonium Flavianum, i.e. of a passage of Josephus referring t o Jesus t h a t was different from the vulgate text? for, as we may recall, this text contains the uncompromising assertion that He was the Messiah. Obviously the other possible hypothesis is that the historical works of Josephus, as known t o Origen, contained no passage directly dealing with Jesus ; it can be argued that Origen might have inferred from this hypothetical circumstance that Josephus was an u n b e l i e v e r . On the whole, the first supposition seems t o me to be more probable; Origen's assertions concerning Josephus' unbelief are so positive that it is difficult to maintain that they are solely based on a n argumentum ex silentio.
211 212 213

211 Historia

Ecclesiastica,

II, 2 3 .

2 1 2 See Contra

Celsum, I, 4 7 ; II, 13. X X , 200, t o

213 Because h i s silence c o u l d be taken as indicating a complete lack o f interest i n Jesus. T h e cursory reference i n Antiquitates, James' being the brother of Jesus, who was called , b e easily brought i n t o line w i t h this view. the Christ - -

can, if o n e is inclined that way,

If we admit that Origen was acquainted with a recension of the Testimonium, it follows from his remarks, as has been partly indicated, that this recension must have differed from that of the vulgate in at least two interconnected particulars: 1. It did not contain the sentence He was the Messiah. 2. It contained either a sceptical or a negative reference to the claim t o Messiahship made on Jesus' behalf. In this context it may be recalled that the recensions of St. Jerome and Michael contained the sentence He was believed to be the Messiah. This sentence (which probably also appeared in Agapius' Syriac source) strikes a mildly dubitative note and may accordingly fill the bill. It can be argued that it may have been the phrase t o which Origen alluded. It may, however, be maintained that Origen's remark appears t o indicate a much more outspoken scepticism on the part of Josephus, even a downright denial of Jesus' Messiahship. If this contention is accepted, the sentence in the recensions of St. Jerome and Michael could be held t o be a watered-down version of the phrase known t o Origen. It may be noted that the recension of the Testimonium with which, according t o our surmise, Origen may have been acquainted does not seem t o have contained derogatory remarks referring t o Jesus ; Origen would have pretty certainly animadverted u p o n them. T o sum u p : The peculiar version of the Testimonium Flavianum found in the chronicle of the tenth-century Jacobite historian Agapius seems to be relevant to the discussion centred on this Josephine or pseudo-Josephine text. Its importance resides in the fact that it is so different from the vulgate version that hardly any of the arguments (or, perhaps, none) disproving the authenticity of the latter have any validity with regard to it. In the main, this authenticity has been questioned because of the pronounced Christian traits of the Testimonium; in Agapius'
214

2 1 4 Or:

thought.

version these traits are conspicuous by their absence, a noncommittal attitude being taken up. This version refers to the report of the disciples concerning Jesus' appearance after the crucifixion, but, contrary t o the vulgate recension, does not positively state that this appearance was a fact. N o r does it affirm the truth of the claim that Jesus was the Messiah; the relevant phrase retranslated into Syriac merely informs us that he was thought to be the Messiah. There is n o derogatory reference to Jesus, and his h u m a n qualities are accorded praise. But this appreciation is comparable in kind t o Josephus' evaluation of other personalities. Onias, for instance, is said t o be a righteous man and dear to God. In the recension of the twelfth-century Syriac Chronicle of Michael the Syrian we also encounter the formulation that Jesus was thought t o be the Messiah. Michael's recension has also some other traits in common with that of Agapius; however, in many respects it is close to the vulgate recension of the Testimonium found in the Syriac translation of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica. It could be regarded as an amalgam of the two, but it is not certain that this is the solution. St. Jerome's recension of the Testimonium, which is one of the earliest known to us, has a similar formulation: He was believed to be the Messiah. This may be considered as a perhaps somewhat supererogatory indication that the parallel sentences in Agapius' and Michael's recensions have not been coined in the ninth century or thereabout, but go back to a much earlier period.
215 216

2 1 5 R . Marcus' translation; Antiquitates, . A comparable meed

X I V , 2 2 : by XVIII, 117), but the ref-

o f praise is possibly meted o u t

Josephus t o J o h n the Baptist (Antiquitates, interpolation.

erence t o h i m has been regarded by s o m e scholars as a Christian 2 1 6 St. Jerome's recension is also reminiscent o f the Oriental recensions cited here i n s o m e significant particulars.

There are some indications that an unknown recension of Eusebius' Historia Ecclesiastica may have been the ultimate source of the passage in Agapius immediately following upon the T e s t i m o n i u m . Conceivably, Agapius' version of the Testimonium could have been taken from this hypothetical version of the Historia Ecclesiastica. However, this is a mere supposition, which may t o some extent be verified or disproved by an examination of the sources of the portion of Agapius' chronicle dealing with the period of the Second Temple and the early centuries of Christianity. Origen's remarks on the disbelief of Josephus prove that his copy of the Antiquitates did not include the vulgate recension of the Testimonium. These remarks can easily be made t o fit in with Agapius' version. It can, however, be argued that the version of the Testimonium known to O r i g e n manifested, with regard t o Christianity, a more pronouncedly sceptical or negative attitude than the non-committal version of Agapius. Is there any possibility that this version should be identical with, or come close t o , the original text of the Testimonium as composed by Josephus ? This might have seemed t o be the main question arising from the existence of this version, if there had not been a school of thought that considers that the Testimonium is wholly a Christian forgery. In the light of the fact that this view is, or has been, strongly represented among scholars, a preliminary question seems t o be necessary; it may be put as follows: does the existence of Agapius' version (which was generally left out of account in the discussion of the Testimonium) tend t o show that the scepticism of the scholars in question was unjustified?
217 218

N o clear-cut or final answers t o these two interrelated questions

217 A n d , at least, o f o n e other passage. 218 O n the w h o l e , it seems probable that h e did k n o w a recension o f the Testimonium.

can be looked for; there are t o o many unknown factors. However, certain considerations spring t o mind. As has been stated, none of the main objections put forward against the authenticity of the vulgate recension of the Testimonium would hold water if they were levelled against Agapius' version. I n order t o compose the latter Josephus need not have been a Christian. I n fact, as far as probabilities go, no believing Christian could have produced such a neutral text; for him the only significant point about it could have been its attesting the historical existence of Jesus. But the fact is that until modern times this particular hare was never started. Even the most bitter opponents of Christianity never expressed any doubt as t o Jesus' having really lived. They confined themselves to deploring the consequences of this fact, and, in certain cases, Jesus' behaviour. Josephus, however, who, within certain limits claimed t o be a n objective historian, could have written this text. It might, however, also be the result of a Christian adaptation of a passage, included in Josephus' Antiquitates, which was originally much more hostile to, or critical of, Christianity. Both these alternative surmises evidently imply that Josephus' Antiquitates did originally contain a Testimonium of some sort dealing with Jesus. This may be regarded as an answer t o the preliminary question formulated above. We must, however, note that both surmises are predicated u p o n the assumption, which seems t o me justified, that Agapius' version does not stem from the vulgate recension. N o Christian would have tampered with the text with a view t o eliminating all the phrases that are concerned with Jesus' superhuman nature and actions and t o replacing the author's affirmation of Jesus' Messiahship and his appearance after death by non-committal statements that merely mention that such claims were made on behalf of Jesus. A n d there is n o indication whatever that the text had been manipulated by a Jew, a Jewish Christian or a Pagan. Moreover, all the data we possess concerning Agapius' account of the

relevant period of history appear t o show that he obtained his facts from Christian s o u r c e s . It is admittedly difficult t o accept the idea that a tenth-century Arabic chronicle has preserved a version of the Testimonium that comes closer to Josephus' original text than the vulgate recension attested in the fourth century. The odds seem t o be very high that a passage of this nature, translated in all probability from the Greek into Syriac and from the Syriac into Arabic, would in the course of centuries have been altered out of all recognition. However, this difficulty seems t o me t o be mainly of a psychological nature. There appears t o be no valid reason why a version of the Testimonium preserved in Arabic should not have escaped Christian censorship to a greater extent than the vulgate version, or even altogether. Moreover, as we have seen, an important trait of Agapius' version is corroborated by St. Jerome's third-or fourth-century recension. We are thus left with two possibilities: either the version of Agapius is the product of Christian censorship applied t o the original text in a less thoroughgoing form than in the case of the vulgate recension, or it did not undergo censorship at all; in that case the deviations from the original text which it may be assumed to contain should be set down as the usual alterations due to the mistakes of scribes and translators. The first hypothesis seems t o me t o be the more probable one, but for n o very conclusive reason. At the moment this is anybody's guess.
219 2 2 0

219 Eusebius' Historia

Ecclesiastica

was, as w e have seen, a m a i n source

for Agapius or the Syriac Chronicler he used. A s has b e e n suggested above, the relation between A g a p i u s ' w o r k and Byzantine historiography should b e examined. 2 2 0 It has been suggested that a reference t o a version o f the T e s t i m o n i u m different from the vulgate recension (and, as I m a y add, a l s o f r o m that o f Agapius) is t o b e found i n a dialogue purporting t o give a n account o f a religious debate at the court o f the Sassanids; see E . Bratke, Das

In this connection the following specific point should also be noted. The last sentence of Agapius' version, corrected by a comparison with Michael's version, could be read: He was thought to be the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. The last words of the sentence offer a sort of explanation, albeit not a very enlightening one, of the term Messiah - , which clearly had t o be explained in a work destined for readers of Greek; at the time of Josephus most of these could have made nothing of the phrase of the vulgate recension . This is an additional reason over and above the obvious one, namely, his unbelief for maintaining that he could not have written t h i s ; whereas the sentence of Agapius and of Michael could conceivably be authentic. It has often been noted that, outside this vulgate version whose authenticity was, t o say the least, doubtful the term is used by Josephus in one passage only, Antiquitates, X X , 200, where he speaks of James, the brother of Jesus, who was called the Messiah - . Sometimes it has been assumed that the fact that in speaking of the chiefs of the Jewish insurrectionary movements Josephus
sogenannte suchungen, Religionsgesprch am Hofe der Sassaniden (Texte und Unter-

XLIII), Leipzig 1899, p . 3 6 ; cf. M . G o g u e l , Jesus and the (English transi.), N e w Y o r k 1960, p . 78, n. 4 . Christ miracles by grace divine by means of

Origins of Christianity

G o g u e l ' s translation o f this reference reads: Josephus spoke of as a just and good man, manifested and signs, and who did a great deal of good to many people. T h e words a just and good man -

O n another may

possible interpretation o f this passage, see Bratke, op. cit., p p . 223 ff. b e regarded as s o m e w h a t reminiscent o f Agapius' description (accordi n g t o o n e version) : his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. It seems, however, t o b e m o r e significant that these words are, as is noted by Bratke (op. cit., p . 230), very similar indeed t o the expression occuring i n Malalas' quotation from Josephus (see a b o v e , . 6\): . Apart from this, the quotat i o n i n the dialogue has n o point o f resemblance with Agapius' vers i o n o f the Testimonium.

does not refer t o anyone among them as being regarded as the Messiah is due t o the wish not to irritate the R o m a n s and t o foster their suspicions with respect t o the Jews. However, there are n o indications that any of these chiefs claimed t o be the Messiah. As far as the evidence we possess goes, it could be supposed that this title, which had been used in speaking of reigning kings a n d of high priests, was not, in the R o m a n period prior to Jesus, applied t o an eschatological saviour or deliverer who had actually lived and manifested himself during this p e r i o d . According to this hypothesis Jesus was described by Josephus (just as he was by Matthew i : 16) as not only because his adherents considered that this title was rightfully his, but also because at that time everyone, b o t h adherents and opponents, knew that this was a cognomen peculiar t o Jesus. The fact that a sentence of Agapius' version, which may be authentic, records that Jesus was thought to be the Messiah and gives some sort of explanation of the term does not, of course, conflict with this hypothesis; it is, in fact, favourable t o it.
221

221 In a period posterior t o Jesus it appears t o have been applied t o Bar K o k h b a b y t h o s e w h o believed i n his m i s s i o n .

Appendix
GALEN ON CHRISTIANS, ACCORDING TO AGAPIUS

I N A P O R T I O N of a b o o k bearing the title Galen on Jews and Christians, Professor Walzer treats of a text attributed to Galen by some Oriental, Moslem, and Christian authors, which refers very favourably to the Christian way of life. All these authors but one state that the text occurred in Galen's summary of Plato's Republic. The single exception is Bar Hebraeus, who b o t h in a Syriac and in an Arabic w o r k tells us that the text is extracted from Galen's summary of the Phaedo. Walzer gives n o credit whatever to this piece of information, his reasons being as follows: Nowhere else are Galen's words attributed to his summary of the Phaedo. It is, moreover, highly improbable that Bar Hebraeus, or his immediate predecessor, had access to more writings of Galen than were known in the ninth century to Hunain Ibn Ishq, who was already unable to trace Galen's summary of the Phaedo and could not translate it into either Syriac or Arabic. Hence it is almost certain that the substitution of the Phaedo for the Republic is due to Bar Hebraeus' notorious carelessness in such matters and of no significance whatever. In addition, Bar Hebraeus is by no means an 'independent witness', since his discussion of Galen's life is nothing but an abridged copy taken from the History of Learned Men by Ibn al-Qifti {published after 1227 C.E.), who, again, attributes the statement to Galen's summary of
1 2 3

R . Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians pendium Timaei Piatonis, (Plato Arabus,

(henceforth: Walzer), Oxford ComI), L o n d o n 1951, p p . 3 7 - 3 8

1949, p p . 1 5 - 1 6 , 57 ff., 8 7 - 9 8 ; cf. P. Kraus & R . Walzer, Galeni o f the Arabic text and p p . 9 9 - 1 0 0 o f the Latin translation. 2 3 Extracted f r o m the Syriac. Walzer, p . 9 3 .

the Republic. Bar Hebraeus can therefore be eliminated from future discussions of this statement. Walzer's assertion that nowhere else are Galen's words attributed to his summary of the P h a e d o . . . is incorrect, as is proved by the following passage occurring in Agapius' chronicle: He also said in his commentary on a book of Plato called the P h a e d o : The people called Christians have built their doctrine upon enigmatic indications and miracles. [As far as] the way they act [is concerned], they are not inferior to the genuine philosophers. For they love continence, keep fasts and prayers, and avoid unjust actions. Among them there are men who do not pollute themselves with women. Bar Hebraeus' v e r s i o n is in various details closer to Agapius than t o that of the Moslem writer quoted by W a l z e r , even if one abstracts from the attribution of the text to the commentary on the Phaedo. In addition, both A g a p i u s and Bar H e b r a e u s quote in order to prove that Galen was not a contemporary of Jesus a passage of Galen's Anatomy, stating, inter alia, that this was composed in the reign of Antoninus Caesar. But there are also divergencies between the two texts. Moreover, Agapius does not refer t o a second proof of the fact that Galen
4 5 6 1 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Ed. Cheikho, pp. 180-181. Galen. O n e M S has Nr.n, and the other Ndn. i n emending the latter n a m e t o Fdn Rumz. A'mal; Aqall; literally: actions. literally: less. C h e i k h o is certainly correct Phaedo.

I n the singular. I n the singular. A g a p i u s a d d s : / s a y that he means by enigmatic concerning the Kingdom of God formulated indications the parables in the pure Gospel.

A Latin translation o f this version occurs in Walzer, p . 9 3 . Ibid., p p . 1 5 - 1 6 . E d . C h e i k h o , p . 9 3 , close t o the beginning o f the text quoted above. Walzer, p p . 9 2 - 9 3 .

lived after Jesus, which is adduced, as Walzer points o u t , not only by Bar Hebraeus, but also by Ibn al-Qifti and I b n Abi Usaybfa in their works on the history of physicians. According t o this proof, Galen must have lived after Jesus, because in the text under discussion Galen speaks of Christian monasticism, a phenomenon that only appeared one hundred years after Jesus. It follows that if Agapius was, with regard to our passage, a source of Bar Hebraeus, he was not the only source. Possibly, however, he did not use Agapius, but some other work one could think of the Syriac source of Agapius, but this is only one possibility among many that also named Galen's summary of the Phaedo as the work from which the text concerning the Christians occurred in the summary of the Phaedo, whereas according to the other sources it occurred in the summary of the Republic. The evidence for the second tradition is later than the evidence for the first. For Agapius lived before all the authors mentioned by Walzer as quoting Galen's t e x t . U b a y d Allah Ibn Jibr'il Ibn U b a y d Allah Ibn Bakhtsh, who, as Walzer notes, wrote a treatise concerning Galen which was the source of the passages in Ibn al-Qifti and Ibn Ab Usaybi'a referred t o above, lived in the eleventh century; and the Christian philosopher Ibn Zur a, who in a treatise Concerning the Main Questions Discussed Between Christians and Jews gives a short version of the text of Galen, which, according to him, occurred at the end of the summary of the Republic, died in 1008, more than sixty years after the date at which Agapius' chronicle or a part of it was being written. However, this chronological point does not seem t o be of primary importance, since Agapius
18 19 e c c 20

17

17 18

Ibid., p . 9 4 . Ibn al-Qift, Ta'rikh al-hukam , Kitb 'uyrt al-anba fi fabaqt berg 1884, I, p p . 7 6 - 7 7 .
9

Leipzig 1903, p. 128 ; Ibn A b i U s a y b i a , al-htukam\ edited b y Mller, K n i g s -

19 20

See, however, b e l o w , n. 2 5 . See Walzer, p . 9 1 .

and all the authors quoted by Walzer indubitably made use of earlier writers. Walzer makes the point that it is highly improbable that Bar Hebraeus or his immediate predecessor had access to more writings of Galen than were known in the ninth century to Hunain Ihn Ishq, who was already unable to trace Galen's summary of the Phaedo and could not translate it into either Syriac or Arabic. It seems t o me that t h e argument is irrelevant, for it is more than probable that the quotations of philosophical texts made by Agapius and by Bar Hebraeus in his historical writings are n o t extracted directly from philosophical works, but from historical chronicles, which, in the last analysis, drew most of their materials from Christian historiography written in Greek. There is, of course, n o difficulty in supposing that a Christian historiographer writing in Greek quoted a text which may have been either genuine or spurious purporting t o be derived from Galen's summary of the Phaedo. As a matter of fact, the treatise of Ubayd Allah Ibn Jibr'il, rightly regarded by Walzer as the source of I b n al-Qifti's and Ibn Abi U s a y b i V s quotations of the text of Galen, was likewise based on historiographical works dealing with chronology. The treatise was written by U b a y d Allah in order t o answer a question posed t o him as t o the time in which Galen lived, this being a controversial topic. In the beginning of this treatise quoted by Ibn A b i U s a y b i ' a , U b a y d Allah states that he found his material in a chronological work written by Ily the Metropolitan of Nisibis a n d in a short history written by Hrn Ibn A z z r . I b n a l - Q i f t i states and he may very well be
21 e e 22 c 2 3 e 24 25

21 22 23 24 25

Ibid., p . 9 3 . I, p . 7 2 . H e died i n 1049. I b n al-Qiffi, p . 136: . He ['Ubayd T h e transcription o f the n a m e given i n the in question] in speaking of text is that o f Graf; see b e l o w , n. 2 5 .

Allah]

relied on it [the treatise

right that 'Ubayd Allah relied mainly on Hrn. There are also some reasons for believing, as Walzer d o e s , that U b a y d Allah m a y have used Ishq I b n Hunayn's History of the Physicians. Walzer also s u r m i s e s that Ishq's work was used by I b n Z u r a when he quotes Galen's text. I n his case the evidence is less clear. H e may have utilized a historiographical work. It is even conceivable that, being a philosopher, he may have read a manuscript of Galen's summary of the Republic, a possibility which is apparently discounted by Walzer. If one abstracts from this possibility, it may appear that the evidence in favour of each of the two traditions, the one maintaining that the text of Galen is extracted from the summary of the Republic a n d the other that the text appeared in the summary of the Phaedo, are supported by evidence of approximately equal strength. T h e fact that the first tradition is adopted by a greater number of authors is obviously of n o great importance in this context. And, as we have indicated, the fact that the second tradition is attested earlier than the first is also n o t very significant. One of these traditions may, of course, be due t o a simple error in transmission. If it is not, several ways of interpretating the data are left open: It is conceivable that Galen may have inserted similar texts into the two summaries in question; or that the text may have originally occurred in one summary only, having been added t o the other by interpolators; in b o t h
26 e 27 e

Galen [namely]

on a history

written

by the monk

Hrn Ibn 'Azn, in Alex-

which the latter enumerated ander, [giving] the duration

the kings and Caesars from the time of

of the reign of every one of them (loc. cit). Christlichen

G. Graf lists Hrn I b n 'Azzr a m o n g the Christian Arabic authors w h o lived prior t o IJunayn Ibn Isriq. See h i s Geschichte der arabischen Literatur, II, Citt del Vaticano 1947, p . 112. A s h e p o i n t s

out, a M S o f H r n I b n 'Azzr's historical w o r k is extant. It is listed i n Sbath's Fihris, under N o . 2696. 26 27 P. 94. Loc. cit.

summaries the texts would be spurious, having been composed by Christian interpolators. There is also the possibility that one of the summaries, or both, originally included a reference made by Galen to the Christians, and that the text that we are acquainted with is the result of an amplification and, perhaps, also an alteration due to Christian interpolators. In this context, the fact that all, or nearly all, statements made in Galen's t e x t can be matched by assertions made by Christians of the early centuries of Christianity about themselves is, it seems t o me, relevant. A more precise observation may be even more so. It can be shown that there is a great similarity between Galen's text and some passages of Philo's description, in the treatise De Vita Contemplativa, of the way of life of the Therapeutae. This similarity comes out rather clearly if one compares some portions of this description as summarized in the Historia Ecclesiastica by Eusebius (who equated, as did other Church Fathers, the Therapeutae with the Christians) with the full text of Galen, as reconstructed by W a l z e r , or with Agapius' version of this, or the parallel text given above. Eusebius, Historia Ecclesiastica: II, 17:10 They study the sacred scriptures and expound their national philosophy by allegory, for they regard the literal interpretation as symbolic of a concealed reality indicated in what is beneath the surface. I I , 17:16-17 Having laid down for the soul continence as a foundation, they build the other virtues on it. None of them would take food or drink before sunset, for they think that philosophy
2 8 2 9 30 31

28

T h e statement included i n the first sentence o f Walzer's reconstruction o f the text has been maintained by Christian philosophers as well as b y t h o s e o f other religions. It is characteristic o f mediaeval Arabic p h i l o s o p h y i n general; see below, p. 81.

29 30 31

In K i r s o p p Lake's translation; o n e w o r d has been changed. P. 15; Walzer's translation has been modified i n s o m e details. T h e Therapeutae.

deserves the daylight and the necessities of the body darkness; for this reason they allot the day to the one, and a small portion of the night to the others. Some of them neglect food for three days for the great love of knowledge dwelling in them, and some so delight and luxuriate in the banquet of doctrine, so richly and ungrudgingly presided over by wisdom, that they abstain for twice that time, and are accustomed scarcely to taste necessary food every six days. II, 17:19-20 For he says that women belong also to those under discussion and that most of them are aged virgins who kept their chastity from no compulsion, like some of the priestesses among the Greeks, but rather from voluntary opinion, from zeal and yearning for wisdom, with which they desired to live, and paid no attention to bodily pleasures, longing not for mortal but for immortal children, which only the soul that loves God is capable of bearing of itself. He then proceeds to expound this more clearly: 'But the interpretations of the sacred scriptures are given them figuratively in allegories' Walzer's reconstruction of Galen's text: Most people are unable to follow any demonstrative argument consecutively; hence they need enigmatic indications and benefit from them and he {Galen) understands by enigmatic indications tales of reward and punishment in a future life just as now we see the people called Christians drawing their faith from parables
32 33

32 33

Philo. Cf. Origen, Contra Celsum, VII, 48. I n this passage Origen refers t o Christian m e n w h o abstain f r o m sexual congress and to Christian w o m e n w h o preserve their virginity all their life. According t o h i m , these w o m e n compare favourably with the few pagan w o m e n w h o keep their virginity i n h o n o u r o f the gods they believe in. Origen states that he will n o t g o into the q u e s t i o n whether the reason for their d o i n g this is or is n o t that they are guarded by m e n . This may allude t o the statement o f P h i l o (De Vita Contemplativa, 68), q u o t e d b y Eusebius i n the passage cited i n the text, that unlike the aged virgins, w h o are members o f the c o m m u n i t y o f Therapeutae, Greek priestesses preserve their virginity o n l y under constraint.

and miracles, and yet sometimes acting in the same way as those who philosophize?* For their lack of fear of death is patent to us every day, and likewise their restraint in cohabitation. For they include not only men but also women who refrain from cohabiting all through their lives; and they also number individuals who, in self-discipline and self-control in matters of food and drink and in their keen pursuit of justice, have attained a pitch not inferior to that of genuine philosophers. Agapius' version of Galen's text has four main points: the Christian use of a l l e g o r y ; the Christian f a s t (a trait referred t o in other versions of the text as their self-control in matters of food and drink) ; the importance the Christians attribute t o continence; and Christian monasticism (in this connection he speaks of men only; other versions of the text speak of men and women). All of these particulars are found in Eusebius' summary of Philo's description of the Therapeutae. The fact that in referring t o complete sexual abstinence throughout life this text mentions only women seems to me t o be of secondary importance. It is also noteworthy that n o version of Galen's text and, for obvious reasons, also not the summary of Philo's description, refers in any way t o Jesus or to any specific Christian belief. The reference, which is found in Ibn al-Qift, Ibn Abi Usaybi'a and Abu'1-Fid', but not in Agapius or Bar Hebraeus, to the lack of fear of death, which makes the Christians similar t o the
25 36 37

34 35 36

O r : doing things similar (see Walzer, p . 57, n. 5).

to the achievements

of genuine

philosophers

S o m e sources a d d w o r d s w h i c h c a n be roughly translated and of its sequel; cf. Walzer, p . 16; p . 67, n . 1. T h e v i e w that Christian formulations have t o receive a n allegorical interpretation is current i n Christian writings. It is found, inter alia, i n a manifest Christian forgery, the correspondence o f Saint Paul a n d Seneca; i n the thirteenth letter Seneca refers t o the allegorical and enigmatic character o f m a n y o f Paulus' texts.

37

H e a l s o adds prayers, a particular which is n o t f o u n d elsewhere.

philosopher, cannot be found in Eusebius' summary, but can be paralleled in relatively early Christian writings. The notion expressed, according t o Walzer's reconstruction, in the first sentence found only in Abu'1-Fid that most people, being incapable of following a demonstrative argument, need allegories, is a commonplace of Arabic philosophy, which probably t o o k it from the Greeks. There is no reference t o it in Eusebius' summary, nor in other undubitably genuine passages of Galen in which he speaks of Moses, the Jews and the C h r i s t i a n s . A somewhat similar statement is, however, made by O r i g e n .
38 9 39 40

On the whole, the resemblances between the text attributed to Galen and Eusebius' summary of Philo's treatise seem t o me

38

T h u s , according t o Origen {Contra

Celsum,

, 45), the apostles sur-

passed i n courage and endurance the philosophers o f w h o m the Greeks speak. It m a y b e n o t e d that before G a l e n another Pagan philosopher, namely, Epictetus, referred t o the indifference o f the Christians, w h o m h e calls Galilaeans, t o death. According t o h i m , this attitude resulted from habit { ); 39 40 See Walzer, p p . 1 0 - 1 5 . Origen remarks that if it were possible for all m e n t o give u p the business o f their lives, devoting their leisure t o philosophy, n o o n e w o u l d h a v e needed t o take any other road. F o r within Christianity, t o o , the religious beliefs are investigated and the enigmas o f the prophets, the G o s p e l parables and myriads o f symbolic events and c o m m a n d ments interpreted. T h i s , however, is i m p o s s i b l e because o f the necessities o f life a n d a l s o because o f h u m a n incapacity, as only very few m e n turn devotedly t o reason {logos). T h i s being s o , what better w a y is there t o help the majority o f people than the o n e transmitted b y Jesus t o the n a t i o n s ? W h a t is better for the mass o f the believers: s o m e w h a t t o a m e n d their habits, being helped b y their faith i n punishments for sin a n d rewards for g o o d , or n o t t o accept conversion based o n simple faith, and put it off until they can examine the doctrines? Evidently, practically all m e n with very few exceptions w o u l d not, if they c h o s e the second possibility, achieve the results that m a y b e obtained f r o m simple faith a n d c o n t i n u e ( t o cling t o ) a very e v i l w a y o f life. see Epictetus, IV, 7 : 6 .

t o be significant; they may justify the hypothesis that when this text was c o m p o s e d , either by Galen himself or by a Christian interpolator, the treatise in question or some Christian summary of it was drawn upon. A recapitulation of the main conclusions that have emerged seems t o be required. These conclusions may be formulated as follows: 1. There is an independent tradition that maintains that Galen's text concerning the Christians occurred in the summary of the Phaedo. The evidence in favour of this tradition is comparable in validity t o the evidence that attests that the text occurred in the summary of the Republic. 2. The immediate sources of U b a y d Allah Ibn Jibr'il Bakhtishu's treatise were two historiographical works treating of chronology. This treatise m a y have been also influenced by Ishq Ibn Hunayn's History of the Physicians. 3. As supposed by Walzer, the passage we have referred t o as Galen's text was probably composed in Greek. 4. There is a close resemblance between Galen's text and some passages in Philo's description of the Therapeutae. These points stand out in the summary of this description made by Eusebius, who, like other Christian authors, believes that Philo speaks of the early Christians. This resemblance should be taken into account in a discussion of Galen's text. It does not necessarily prove that the text is spurious, though, on the whole, it tends to give greater credibility t o this thesis
42 e 4 3

41

41

They are m u c h closer than the resemblances between Galen's text and a passage o f Alexander o f L y c o p o l i s concerning the Christians with w h i c h the text is c o m p a r e d b y Walzer (p. 72). Like the text and like Eusebius' summary, this passage d o e s n o t m e n t i o n Jesus o r any specific Christian belief, but it d o e s n o t m e n t i o n Christian asceticism either.

42 43

Or amplified and given its final f o r m ; see b e l o w , n. 4 3 . A s indicated a b o v e , there is a possibility that 'Galens' text' is the result o f a n amplification o f a shorter genuine passage o f G a l e n dealing with the Christians. T h i s passage m a y have been altered i n the process.

SELECTED

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Agapius:

Kitb

al-Unwn

/ Agapius

Episcopus

Mabbugensis: Scriptores

Historia X),

Universalis

(Corpus

Scriptorum

Christianorum: Universelle,

Arabici,

edited b y L . C h e i k h o , L o u v a i n 1954 (reprint). [ = A g a p i u s , ed. C h e i k h o ] Agapius: Kitb al- Unwn / Histoire de Menbidj (Patrologia Orientalis, b y A . Vasiliev, Paris 1912. R . Eisler, Eusebius: steller Eusebius: , Demonstratio der ersten Historia Evangelica crite par Agapius (Mafrboub) V , 4 ) , edited with F r e n c h translation [ = A g a p i u s , ed. Vasiliev] I, Heidelberg 1929. [ = E i s l e r ] Christlichen Werke, [= (Die griechischen Christlichen SchriftVI), edited b y Demonstratio] Schriftsteller (Die griechischen Eusebius'

drei Jahrhunderte: Evangelica

I . A . Heikel, Leipzig 1913. der ersten drei Jahrhunderte: Leipzig 1903. Eusebius: Historia Ecclesiastica, History Loeb Classical

Eusebius* Werke, II), edited by . Schwartz, Library, edited by

E . Schwartz, translated b y K . Lake, L o n d o n - C a m b r i d g e (Mass.) 1959. The Ecclesiastical Josephus: Josephus: Opera, of Eusebius in Syriac, edited b y W . Wright & N . M c L e a n , Cambridge 1898. I - V I I I , edited b y B . N i e s e , Berlin 1 8 8 7 - 1 8 9 4 . Judaicae, L o e b Classical Library, I V - I X , text based Antiquitates

o n N i e s e ' s e d i t i o n , with corrections b y H . S. J. Thackeray and other scholars, translated b y Thackeray, R . M a r c u s & L . H . F e l d m a n n , Cambridge ( M a s s . ) - L o n d o n Josephus: Bellum Judaicum, 1961-1965. L o e b Classical Library, - , text based o n

N i e s e ' s edition, w i t h corrections by H . S. J. Thackeray and other scholars, translated by Thackeray, Cambridge ( M a s s . ) - L o n d o n 1 9 5 6 - 1 9 5 7 . De Vita Sua Flavius Josephe: A . Pelletier, Paris 1959. Michel le Syrien: Paris 1910. Chronicle, Autobiographie, edited a n d translated b y [= Vita]

edited i n facsimile with French translation b y [ = Michael the Syrian]

J. B . C h a b o t ; V o l . I : Translation, Paris 1 8 9 9 ; V o l . I V : Syriac Text,

INDEX

OF

NAMES

Abgar Agapius Agrippa

55 81 passim 47 82 7 8 10 13 14 15 16

Epictetus Eusebius

81 passim 6

Abu'1-Fid*

Eutychius I b n Sa'd F e l d m a n , L. H . Florinus 6 Flusser, D . 38 Galen 73 ff. 61 6 4 43 71 25 20

Aghbiys see A g a p i u s Alexander o f L y c o p o l i s Al-Makn 17 18 19 3 4 35 Al-Manbij see A g a p i u s Alon, G. 59 61 A n a n u s see H a n n n A n n a s see H a n n n Antipater Archelaus Aristobulus Asamonaios Bar Hebraeus 7 6 80 Bar K o k h b a Baumstark, A . Bratke, E . Burkitt, F . C . 72 6 20 7 0 71 63 74 59 59 59 61 62 73 7 4 75 A n t o n i n u s Caesar

Gelzer, H . Goethals, A. Goguel, M. Graf, G .

76 77

Gressmann, H . Hubert tfannn

Giphanius see V a n Giffen,

11 12 13 55 56 57 58 60 20
e e

Harnack, A . G.

Hrn Ibn Azzr ( Azn) Herod 63 6 4 H u n a i n I b n Isljq 76

76 77

H i e r o n y m u s see Jerome, St. 11 56 58 59 60 61 62

H.urs.y.w.s. see r.s.y.w.s. I b n A b U s a y b i a 75 7 6 80 I b n al-Qift Ibn Zur a

e e

Caiaphas see Qayf Cedrenus Celsus 34 9 52 passim 15 17 18 19

73 75 76 8 0 75

C h a b o t , J. B . Cheikho, L. Christ

Ifltn see P l a t o ; cf. P h l e g o Ily 76 6 Irenaeus

Ch.rfs see A g r i p p a passim 53 20 Claudius

Ishmael, s o n o f Phab see Ism'il, s o n o f Y a h y Ishq I b n Junayn Isidorus Pelusianus 60 Jesus James passim 6 4 65 71 77 82 15 12 56

Dornseiff, F . Egesippus Eisler, R . 12 56 6 0

32 36 4 2 45 43 13 15 2 0 21 33 34

Eichstadt, . . .

Ism'il, s o n o f Yalry

Eliezer, s o n o f Plannn ( A n a n u s )

J e r o m e , St.

7 13 17 2 2 3 0 37 70 67 61

Plato

7 5 4 73 7 4 49 11 13 55 56 57 58 6 0 63 12 80

4 0 41 4 2 4 3 4 4 52 66 67 J o h n the Baptist John Chrysostom Josephus Julius Africanus see a l - M a k n Justus o f Tiberias 61 64

Pompey Qayf Salome Seneca

p a s s i m ; see a l s o Qayf 7 53 58 61
e

64

Schallt, A .

Jrjis a l - M a k n I b n al- A m d

S h l m see S a l o m e S i m o n , s o n o f Q a m h u d (Camithus) 12 56 6 0 S i m o n b e n K i m b i t see s o n o f Qamflid Sozomenos Suidas Syncellus 15 7 53 64 43 43 6 2 3 53 15 Simon,

M a h b b Qustantn al Manbij see A g a p i u s Malalas, I o a n n e s Mariamne Martin, C. Merx, A . Messiah Meyer, . Moses 81 36 2 0 43 64 21 29 passim 45 passim 20 15 17 18 71

Thackeray, H . S. J. Thallus Tatian Tiberius Titus

e

MeScerskiy, . . Michael the Syrian Mller, G . . Norden, . Onias Origen Orosius 67

53 41 7 8 52 53 55

T a n n guy Lefvre

T h e o p h i l o s o f Edessa 59

U b a y d A l l a h I b n Jibr 'u I b n ' U b a y d A l l a h Ibn Bakhtshu 7 6 77 82 8 52 53 56 58 61 20 40 75

7 2 0 34 51 6 4 65 66 53 5 4 80

68 7 9 81

r.s.y.w.s.

Paul, Paulus Philo 53 Pilate

Valerius Gratus Vasiliev, A . 7 52 31

Phabi see Y a h y 78 79 80 82 54 8 9 16 17 2 5 2 6 2 9 P h l e g o ( P h l e g o n ) o f Tralles

V a n Giffen, Hubert passim V o n Gebhardt, . Walzer, R . Yaby 12 73 ff.

32 33 35 4 0 4 2 52 53

L I S T OF M A I N P A S S A G E S A N D W O R D S

QUOTED*

Agapius e d . C h e i k h o , p . 140 6 3 pp. 180-181 74 pp. 239-240 7 f f . l 4 16 5 5 ff. p p . 2 5 4 - 2 5 5 4 6 f . p . 255 9 Al-Makn ed. C h e i k o , p . 391 8 10 14 15 Egesippus , 12 4 1 4 2 Eusebius Demonstratio, Historia I, 5 : 6 2 7 I, 9 : 4 2 7 I, 1 0 : 4 5 1 51 79 I, 13 5 5 , 9 48 History of 27 27 p. 45,1.7 in Syriac, ed. Wright & VIII, 2 : 9 9 12 61 I, 5 : 3 2 7 12 1 , 8 : 9 55ff. 78 27 1,8:4 Ecclesiastica,

Jerome, De

St. 40 41 X I V , 2 2 67 XX, 200

Viris Illustribus, I, 2 4 8

Josephus Antiquitates, X V I I I , 34 12 6 4 65 7 1 X V H I , 3 4 - 3 5 5 6 f.

X V I I I , 6 3 - 6 4 14 16 Bellum Judaicum, xrv-xv, Contra John x i : 4 9 59 Luke i i i : 2 11 Malalas, v:2 34 Ioannes x i : 51 5 9 Apionem,

XX, 247-250 59 ed. N i e s e , p p . 45 I, 1 51 I, 2 5 1

xviii: 13 59

I, 1 0 : 2 - 6

I, 1 0 : 5 1 2 I, 1 1 : 4 II, 1 7 : 1 0 11,17:19-20

Chronographia, Matthew i: 16 7 2 Michael Chronicle, the

ed. B . G . N i e b u h r ,

, 1 7 : 1 6 - 1 7 7 8 f. The Ecclesiastical Eusebius

p p . 2 4 7 - 2 4 8 15 7 1

M c L e a n , p . 2 7 , 11. 2 - 3 p. 2 7 , 1 . 2 0 27 p. 4 3 , 1 . 5 27 27 Theophania, 25 Galen e d . R . Walzer, p . 15 7 9 f. 7 6 f. Ibn al-Qifti Tdrikh al-frukam, p. 44 57

Syrian pp. 143-144 52 IV,

p . 4 0 , 1 . 11

ed. J. . C h a b o t , I,

p. 143 6 0 p. 91 2 4 ff. Origen

p . 4 7 , 1. 5 2 4

p . 48 2 4 ff.

e d . S. L e e , V, 4 4 2 4 f.

G e r m a n transi, b y H . G r e s s m a n n

C o m m e n t a r y o n Matthew i : 17 65 Contra Celsum, I, 6 : 1 7 - 1 8 3 5 I, 47 5 1 6 4 65

p . 93

Sozomenos Historia Ecclesiastica, ed. J. Bidez, L i b . I, C a p . 1, p . 7 15 TB Yoma 47a 12

p . 136 7 6 f.

* B o l d type indicates page-numbers in this w o r k .

[87]