Zinner lists what are the best arguments given by Kate Leeming and he adds one in more at the end:
Next, Leeming perceptively asks: “Why would a Christian be reticent about naming Jesus? Further, many of the passages simply do not tally with the canonical Gospels. On the basis of the theology of the ‘additions,’ Agourides and Tsarnits (1954) suggest a late second‐ or early third‐ century date for their composition. It would certainly have been heresy for a medieval Christian translator to depart from the Gospel accounts.”71 More succinctly stated, “Many other ‘additions’ cannot be attributed to a translator.”72 Leeming presents the following examples that indicate the Slavonic version seems to represent to some extent Josephus’ first edition of BJ:
As Leeming argues, even the more obvious Christian interpolations in the Slavonic Josephus may in part be ancient rather than medieval additions:
That is, it is most probable that the interpolations are early, at least partly so, for it is likely that the interpolations were already in the text that was translated into Slavonic, and not that the Slavonic translator created them, certainly at least not en toto. This does not exclude the likelihood that some portions of the text would have been added by the Slavonic translator, and indeed, it would be surprising if this had not been the case. I allude to details that may reflect medieval concerns and interests, such as warfare techniques or preferences, etc. A possible item of evidence for the antiquity of Slavonic Josephus’ Christian interpolations may be located in IGT 7:4,
Compare the following portion from the Slavonic parallel to the Testimonium Flavianum:
The similarity between the two texts could offer potential support for Leeming’s claim that the Christian portions of the so-called Slavonic additions generally appear archaic and quite early.
Another “addition” which probably dates back to a more reliable version of the text than the surviving Greek is the account of the cunning of the Jewish centurion, Phoia. Like the “Christological additions,” this consists of a lengthy chapter dealing with a discrete episode; unlike those “additions,” it has nothing whatsoever to do with the Gospel story. There is no discernible motive for the translator adding this episode. The Phoia episode does not obtrude in the Slavonic. This is surely an instance where an episode has been omitted from the Greek text as we have it, rather than being added to the Slavonic. Another instance of an “addition” which could not have been made by the Slavonic translator is the precise text of the oath taken by the Essenes. Arie Rubinstein (1956) wonders what motive there could have been for addition of material on the Essenes. Finally, the Slavonic contains many “additions” in which Old Testament texts are referred to. The events of Josephus’s day are linked to Old Testament prophecies, especially the Book of Daniel. A medieval translator could have been aware of these prophecies and may have been tempted to add them to the Greek, especially if he was writing an entire history of the world such as the Chronograph. It is possible to ascribe these “additions” to Josephus himself, however.73
As Leeming argues, even the more obvious Christian interpolations in the Slavonic Josephus may in part be ancient rather than medieval additions:
The “additions” referring to the birth of Jesus, his crucifixion, and the works of his followers have been seen to represent an attempt by a Christian to place the life of Jesus within the historical context of Jewish War. Thus, the addition of the arrival of the Magi at Herod’s court, of an inscription concerning Jesus to the three in the Greek text, and of the rending of the veil of the temple, have been attributed to the translator. A note of caution should be struck here, however, before these passages are dismissed as late interpolations.74
That is, it is most probable that the interpolations are early, at least partly so, for it is likely that the interpolations were already in the text that was translated into Slavonic, and not that the Slavonic translator created them, certainly at least not en toto. This does not exclude the likelihood that some portions of the text would have been added by the Slavonic translator, and indeed, it would be surprising if this had not been the case. I allude to details that may reflect medieval concerns and interests, such as warfare techniques or preferences, etc. A possible item of evidence for the antiquity of Slavonic Josephus’ Christian interpolations may be located in IGT 7:4,
“because this child is a great thing – whether a god or an angel or whatever else I might say – I don’t know.”75
Compare the following portion from the Slavonic parallel to the Testimonium Flavianum:
“I for one cannot decide where the truth lies.... Again, if an angel or other heavenly being, or God Himself, takes human form to fulfil his purpose... .”76
The similarity between the two texts could offer potential support for Leeming’s claim that the Christian portions of the so-called Slavonic additions generally appear archaic and quite early.
Statistics: Posted by Giuseppe — Fri Jan 05, 2024 10:54 pm