Jesus granskad

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

Den svenska texten.

Notice that this is the second blog post today. The first part of the Syriac and Arabic translations is found here.

II. Testimonium Flavianum

The Church Fathers’ knowledge of the Testimonium

The Syriac and Arabic translations

The common sources of Michael and Agapius

Already Shlomo Pines realized that although Agapius’ version of the Testimonium is quite different from Michael’s (and everyone else’s); there are obvious similarities between them. Later on, also Alice Whealey and Lawrence I. Conrad compared the texts and found clear parallels to suggest a literary kinship.[136] There are several unique characteristics that Agapius and Michael share, which reasonably demonstrate that they both are relying on an older common source – such as that they both explicitly says that Jesus died, probably have the same expression that Jesus was thought to be the Messiah and give Josephus’ work a similar title.[137]

Agapius said himself that he based his chronicle on a now lost earlier Syriac chronicle written towards the end of the eighth century by Theophilus of Edessa (695-785 CE),[138] who belonged to the Syrian Christian Maronite Church. This in turn is supported by the fact that Agapius’ story begins at the Creation and ends around the year 780 CE, shortly before the death of Theophilus, but long before Agapius lived. Michael the Syrian on the other hand states as his source for the period c. 582–843, a chronicle by a certain Dionysius I of Tellmahre who was Patriarch of Antioch 818–848. In his chronicle Michael is quoting the preface to Dionysius’ chronicle, in which Dionysius acknowledged that he too drew on the work of Theophilus, the same Theophilus who Agapius refers to.[139] So in describing the events from the late sixth to the late eighth century, both Agapius and Michael relied on Theophilus’ eight-century Syriac chronicle – Agapius directly and Michael indirectly through Dionysius.[140] And when Agapius and Michael are compared, it can be shown that in spite of the fact that they both are dealing with the same period and are relying on the same source, Agapius’ text still is considerably shorter; which inevitably leads to the conclusion that Agapius paraphrases and shortens his source to a greater extent than Michael does.

Testimonium Flavianum tells about the fate of Jesus and covers the period of the first half of the first century. The question then is what source, or possibly sources, Agapius and Michael used in their descriptions of the earlier period, and then specifically for the first century, as they reasonably got the Testimonium from a source that deals with first century events? We know that Theophilus used Eusebius’ Chronicon and Ecclesiastical History (the Syriac translation) as his main sources for the period prior to Eusebius; that is before the fourth century.[141] This means that if Agapius and Michael both relied on Theophilus, their versions of the Testimonium is likely to be based on Eusebius’ version and not on Josephus’. However, it is far from certain that they relied on Theophilus also for the earlier period.[142]

Otherwise, one could conceive that Agapius and Michael also shared another source; a chronicle depicting the earlier period and that this chronicle perhaps was attached to their respective sources, Theophilus and Dionysius. Such a chronicle might be the oldest known of the Syriac chronicles, the one James of Edessa wrote in 692 CE and which also has not survived.[143] Another scenario is that they drew either directly on James or on someone else who in turn drew on him.

But the fact is that also James drew on Eusebius. His chronicle was a continuation of Eusebius’ Chronicle (Chronicon).[144] In any case, both Agapius and Michael apparently drew on a common Syriac source also for the Testimonium, as well as for the surrounding material, and that source in turn is based on a Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. The course can simplified be described as illustrated in the image to the right (although in Swedish).

Eusebius’ books were very early translated into Syriac; so was for certain his Ecclesiastical History and Theophania. In both these translations the Testimonium is very close to the received text. And although we lack direct evidence, we still can assume that also Chronicon (where however the Testimonium does not exist) was early translated into Syriac. There are two more or less complete manuscripts containing the Syriac version of the Ecclesiastical History preserved – manuscripts referred to as MS A and MS B by scholars. MS B is paleographically dated to the sixth century, while MS A was written in 462 CE.[145] Furthermore, the oldest manuscript of the Syriac version of Theophania is dated to the year 411 CE.[146]

However, since both this manuscript and the one from 462 CE containing the Ecclesiastical History have many copying errors, it is obvious that these in neither case are the Syriac originals. The manuscripts probably are several transcripts away from the original translations. In addition, there is an Armenian translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History made in the early fifth century from the Syriac translation, which therefore must have been available already at that time.[147] The Armenian translation is most likely made from a fourth century Syriac manuscript. Also the Armenian text says without any reservation that he was the Christ. The literal meaning of ”Քրիստոս իսկ է նա” is “he is indeed Christ” or “Indeed, He is the one who is the Christ.”[148]

This has led to the assumption that the Syriac translation of the Ecclesiastical History and Theophania was made at the latest in the early fifth century, but more likely in the fourth century, and then perhaps as early as the first half of the fourth century. William Wright has suggested that the Ecclesiastical History was translated into Syriac as early as the time of Eusebius (he died in 340 CE) or shortly afterwards.[149] These Syriac translations of the Testimonium in Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History and Theophania[150] follow the Greek text (accordingly also the text in Josephus) almost verbatim (if a translation can be said to be verbatim). Below is the Testimonium from the Syriac version of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. The Testimonium is highlighted in the blue frame (the text is read from right to left).

The interesting thing is that Michael’s version shares many salient common characteristics with the early Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Michael could scarcely have translated the Testimonium from the Greek text of Eusebius or Josephus, as an independent translation for sure would bring a very different result. “The comparison of Michael’s vocabulary with that of the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica confirms that Michael’s Testimonium must derive ultimately from an edition of the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica”, Alice Whealey writes.

Michael therefore drew on the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History (a translation probably made in the fourth century) but then in all likelihood indirectly. He probably got it from an older Syriac chronicler, who in turn drew on the Syriac translation.[151] The only essential differences between the Syriac translation (which closely follows the received text of the Testimonium) and Michael’s version, is that in Michael’s version Jesus “was thought to be” instead of “was” the Messiah and that Jesus’ death also is more emphasized. These two elements are also found in Agapius. In Agapius’ version of the Testimonium it says that “Pilate condemned Him to be crucified and to die”. Michael writes that “Pilate condemned him to the cross and he died”. Michael and Agapius are the only ones having this variant reading. However, one should bear in mind that according to the Quran Jesus never died,[152] and that it without any doubt could be important for Christians when confronted by Muslims to have a definitive statement from a Jewish historians that Jesus really died. [153]

As said before, another difference is that Michael has “was thought to be the Messiah”. Agapius instead writes that Jesus “was perhaps the Messiah”. The Arabic la‛alla means “perhaps”. But if now Agapius and Michael both drew on a common Syriac source, it is likely that this source had the same expression as Michael has, therefore mistavra (or mistabra). The Syriac mistavra means “thought to be” or “seemed to be”, but can also mean “perhaps”.[154] The Syriac original that Agapius drew on therefore probably had mistavra, and Agapius interpreted the word as “perhaps” and therefore translated mistavra into “perhaps”; in Arabic la‛alla.

It’s also quite obvious that Agapius does not quote the text he is draws on, but more summarizes it. This can be seen also in other passages; even the title of Josephus’ work is only approximately given.[155] Michael’s Chronicle is much longer than Agapius’ even though they cover the same period and Michael quotes long passages verbatim from his source.

Seemingly no one, not even Pines, appear to argue that Agapius used Greek sources. Even though Josephus’ Jewish War was translated into Syriac in the eight century, there is no evidence that by this time (that is the tenth century) the Antiquities of the Jews was translated into either Arabic or Syriac.[156] Agapius can reasonably not have drawn on Josephus’ Greek text, neither on any translation of his works. As far as one can judge, Agapius’ source for the Testimonium is, as he himself says, a Syriac text; then either Theophilus or some former Syrian chronicler who ultimately drew on the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. For those reasons Agapius does not rely on Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews.

Agapius’ chronicle Kitab al-Unwan is thus an abbreviated historical account in the form of a paraphrasing translation of a Syriac chronicle into Arabic. In this, Agapius has also translated the Testimonium from Syriac into Arabic and then probably like he did with the rest, only approximately. But how could Agapius choose not to include the parts where Jesus is depicted as more divine? It is not easy to determine why a person does what he does. However, it is possible to examine how Agapius proceeded in other instances.

Agapius writes among other things about Jesus’ correspondence with king Abgar. The legend of Abgar, an evident tall story, is reproduced by Eusebius.[157] But since Agapius includes some details that do not occur in Eusebius or Michael, and the story in Agapius[158] shows apparent parallels both in language and content with a Syrian miracle story named The Teaching of Addai,[159] it is likely that he (also) drew on this fifth-century Syriac work, or possibly on a document very much like it. But king Abgar’s list of the miracles performed by Jesus, such as healing the blind, the paralyzed, the deaf, and so on – miracles that occur in both Eusebius and Michael, as well as in The Teaching of Addai – are missing in Agapius’ version. Apparently, he has omitted the miracles even though his source or sources had them. This is one example of how he downplays miracles.

The same thing can be seen in another fictitious letter by king Abgar, this time to the emperor Tiberius. There are no parallels with Eusebius and Michael, however, again with The Teaching of Addai. As in the previous example, Agapius’ version[160] is considerably shorter than the corresponding story in The Teaching of Addai; [161] and most importantly, the references to the miracles performed by Jesus when he was alive are removed. When Jesus in The Teaching of Addai is said to have “even restored the dead to life”, Agapius makes the return of the dead a result of Jesus’ crucifixion: “When they had crucified him … many of the dead came back to life and rose [from their tombs]”. One can of course speculate on why, but it is clear that Agapius on other occasions was playing down Jesus’ miracle-making. That the miracle-making is played down also in the Testimonium is therefore likely to be a result of Agapius himself playing it down and not a result of Agapius’ source having done it; especially since Agapius apparently drew on the same Syriac source as Michael and these elements appear in Michael’s version of the Testimonium.[162]

Because of this, it is apparent that Agapius himself removed the missing parts and that his version is but a downplayed version of what he found in his source. He appears to have done the same as many of today’s researchers want to do; he eliminated those parts of the Testimonium which he thought that Josephus reasonably could not have written. Furthermore, Agapius wrote probably for Muslim readers,[163] and for that reason did not want to exaggerate the miracles, but rather elaborated on the text so that it better suited Islamic readership. Alice Whealey on the other hand argues that he translated his chronicle for a Christian, because Muslims in general were not interested in Greek and Syriac texts.[164] However, this does not prevent that Agapius took his Muslim surroundings into consideration. Now, be that as it may. It is Agapius’ source that is interesting and not Agapius’ version. And the source is probably very similar to, if not identical with, the version we find in Michael; which better preserves the original text. Michael is thus the better witness! The question then is from where the source got the Testimonium?

What we think we know is as follows: Michael drew on other Syrian chroniclers, among those probably Theophilus and James, either directly or indirectly. Both of these latter drew on Eusebius for the early history before the time of Eusebius. Further, it can be established that Michael’s version of the Testimonium has a number of expressions and choices of words that are identical to the Testimonium found in the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History; a translation probably done in the fourth century, perhaps while Eusebius was still alive. Michael has probably got his version of the Testimonium from some Syrian chronicler who in turn drew on the Syriac translation of Eusebius’ Ecclesiastical History. Moreover, there are certain peculiarities shared by both Agapius and Michael in their versions of the Testimonium, and these peculiarities suggest that they both drew on a common source, and also that these peculiarities existed in their common Syriac source.

The differences are that Jesus is explicitly said to have died and that he only was thought to be the Messiah. But the extant Syriac translation reproduces the received version, including that Jesus was the Messiah. In any case, Agapius’ loose paraphrase does not reflect any other source than the one Michael drew on. In that way, this is no independent witness to the Testimonium in Josephus, but everything comes from Eusebius. The only real difference between Michael’s and Agapius’ master on the one hand, and the received version in Josephus and Eusebius on the other, is whether Jesus was thought to be or simply was the Messiah.

Roger Viklund, 2011-03-19