This is one of a few reviews I’m doing of not-so-new
academic articles on the same subject: on the first of the passages in Josephus’
works to mention Jesus Christ – the controversial passage.
This review is of Paul Hopper’s essay "A Narrative Anomaly in
Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63.” It was published in
Linguistics
and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers. Eds. Monika Fludernik and
Daniel Jacob (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2014), pages 147-169. A copy of the article can be found online.
First things
Josephus was a first century Jewish historian who wrote in
Greek. Some of the books he wrote have survived in copies that have been passed
down the ages. There are two passages in his works that mention Jesus Christ.
Under the microscope here is the controversial mention. It’s found in Josephus’ Antiquities
Book 18. It’s a passage sometimes
known as the “Testimonium Flavianum” (“TF” for short). I won’t bore you with
why it’s called that. (Here, I’m leaving aside the lesser known passage in Book
20. This is about Book 18.) Hopper’s essay argues that Josephus never wrote a
word of the book 18 passage about Jesus. I’m going to review his arguments. This
is the passage:
Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man; if it be
lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of
such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of
the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ.
those that loved him at the first did not forsake him.
For he appeared to them alive again, the third day:8 as the divine prophets had foretold
these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him.
And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not
extinct at this day.
I don't think anything world-shattering depends on the authenticity of this passage, but many scholars have written on it, and it is a fascinating subject to delve into. This is one of three articles on the TF that I am reviewing
at the moment. The others are by Gary J. Goldberg and Fernando
Bermejo-Rubio.
Of the three, Hopper’s has the most problems. There is also a number of telling digressions in his essay, and if I seem to digress here and there, it's to keep up with the essay's digressions.
Hopper believes he has found a new way to decisively judge the authenticity of the TF, which is interesting because few scholars are claiming that that can be done beyond doubt. In short, what he finds is that the linguistic narrative technique of three passages featuring Pontius Pilate - amongst which the TF is situated - is not matched by the linguistics of the TF.
From this Hopper somewhat leaps to the conclusion that the TF is therefore entirely un-Josephan. As I will counter, in fact to have the linguistics of one passage nestled within passages with different liguistics does not equate to un-Josephan and Josephan. Rather, if - as is possible - there are other sections in Josephus' works where a passage with linguistics like the TF's is found amongst passages with contrasting linguistics, then this would rather demonstrate that what we actually have is something typical of Josephus. So, the unasked question is, are the results of Hopper's test duplicated in any relevant comparative test? Hopper does not do this test, so we simply don't find that out. (It's unfortunately quite common that this fundamental scientific step is overlooked in tests outside the physical sciences.)
As such, Hopper does indeed find that the narrative linguistics of the other three passages are not matched by the linguistics of the TF; but he does not establish that this is un-Josephan.
The remainder of this review will look at this in detail.
Hopper believes he has found a new way to decisively judge the authenticity of the TF, which is interesting because few scholars are claiming that that can be done beyond doubt. In short, what he finds is that the linguistic narrative technique of three passages featuring Pontius Pilate - amongst which the TF is situated - is not matched by the linguistics of the TF.
From this Hopper somewhat leaps to the conclusion that the TF is therefore entirely un-Josephan. As I will counter, in fact to have the linguistics of one passage nestled within passages with different liguistics does not equate to un-Josephan and Josephan. Rather, if - as is possible - there are other sections in Josephus' works where a passage with linguistics like the TF's is found amongst passages with contrasting linguistics, then this would rather demonstrate that what we actually have is something typical of Josephus. So, the unasked question is, are the results of Hopper's test duplicated in any relevant comparative test? Hopper does not do this test, so we simply don't find that out. (It's unfortunately quite common that this fundamental scientific step is overlooked in tests outside the physical sciences.)
As such, Hopper does indeed find that the narrative linguistics of the other three passages are not matched by the linguistics of the TF; but he does not establish that this is un-Josephan.
The remainder of this review will look at this in detail.
Cross-disciplinary
work
It can be welcome to see a cross-discipline contribution to
a debate. In this case, Hopper’s usual field of study is not ancient history or
ancient texts, nor primarily literary studies. He is a linguist crossing over into literary
studies here (and he has previously published work doing a similar crossover). (He’s not purporting to be crossing into historiography per se, but
see what follows…) Valuable insight into things can come from another discipline.
So, here we have a linguist contributing to discussion of the TF as story, as literature, whereas
it is more usually dealt with in the field of the study of ancient history and
ancient texts. Sounds good, so far.
To say something about Paul Hopper's area of expertise, and by way of comparison, Fernando Bermejo-Rubio has credentials in history of religions, the historiography of Jesus of
Nazareth, early Christianity and Manichaeism. And I’ll mention some more experts
on the study of the TF. Those are credentials which command an audience on it. Hopper,
as said, commands an audience for different reasons. He is an expert in linguistics, with experience in interactions between linguistics and literature. (And both certainly have superior credentials to myself!) My only reason for contrasting their credentials here is to give some context to some of the strengths and weaknesses that occur in his essay, to which I now turn.
The publisher of the book in which Hopper’s essay appears states,
regarding the volume’s intentions:
“This volume explores the
interface between linguistics and literary studies. Theoretical and textual
analyses help illustrate the common features between everyday discourse and
literature, and show the potentials for a collaborative approach between
literary scholars and linguists in understanding speech acts and reference; inference,
cognitive and cultural background; rhetoric, styles of speaking and writing; as
well as perspectives and genres.”
Now there’s a potential problem here, because actually a lot
of the scholarly literature on the TF deals with it from the perspective of
historians, and Hopper finds himself in the realm of history as well as
literature here, whether he intends it or not. I don’t know if, and to what
extent, Hopper consulted experts in the field of historiography, but it doesn’t
take long before problems emerge.
The “pagan” Josephus and the Pilate Stone: While I acknowledge that Hopper is writing outside his primary area of expertise, some things remain difficult to
justify. It is troubling that Hopper categorises Josephus as a “pagan” witness
to history. One wonders how much of Josephus’ Antiquities he actually read. I also think that this may be the
first time I’ve encountered the use of Wikipedia for a citation in an academic
publication: surely an academic source could be cited for the “Pilate Stone”?
Incidentally, the writing in places has an emotive tone that is
surely out of place. It may in some way be to indicate his opinion as a
linguist, but there is something odd in how he ascribes to the Nicene Creed
“the sycophantic tone of the confirmed believer” (page 166) (and calls the Jesus of the
gospels “a religious fanatic”). Is there some animus towards religion seeping
through and potentially putting the objectivity of Hopper’s thesis at risk? Or
is it all just clumsy handling of a field that Hopper is not at home in?
Awareness of scholarly literature: It’s usual in such
an essay to begin with a review of scholarly literature on the subject. So it
might come as some surprise to note, for example, that in this 2014 essay there
is no mention of Alice
Whealey’s influential work on the TF. One would think that Hopper ought to
have had some knowledge of certain key contributors to contemporary scholarship
on the TF. But evidence of that is lacking. If Hopper cites Price and Doherty
(he does), then why not Whealey? He cites Feldman but omits his contribution to
Josephus, Judaism, and Christianity
(Leiden: Brill, 1987). A comparison with the impressive footnotes in Bermejo-Rubio’s article is telling as to the breadth of literature on the
subject that Hopper seemingly had not begun to look at.
Corresponding observations apply to Hopper’s bibliography,
as it confirms that his research base was worryingly unrepresentative of
Josephan studies, and one wonders if Hopper could have known this when he
wrote. One also wonders if his research relied on someone who provided him with
a problematic reading list. Who would have given him such an unrepresentative
list of scholars on the study of Josephus? His bibliography is rather short,
and I was surprised to find mythicists’ publications listed but scant reference
to academia’s many Josephan experts (although Feldman is mentioned). In this
bibliography in a linguistics article, we however find Earl Doherty’s 2005 The Jesus Puzzle; Robert Price’s 2000 Deconstructing Jesus and his 2003 The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man. (And
Burton Mack is in there.) Mythicist leanings? If Whealey’s contribution is
irrelevant to Hopper’s study, then that surely might apply to Price and
Doherty’s just as much. It’s a mystifyingly unbalanced aspect of the essay.
Sceptical or gullible: The essay’s baffling lack of interest in, or awareness of, wider scholarship has awkward effects. His
opening gambit is a polarised generalisation about how modern “sceptical”
readings stand superior to earlier “credulity” and “gullibility” about texts
that are “spurious.” (This to prime the reader to be able to judge the TF
wholly spurious.)
Hopper leaps to a comparison, not with a linguistic or
literary example as you might expect in this context, but with archaeological
fakery relating to the historical Jesus, the so-called ‘James Ossuary’ that Hopper
says misled scholars Ben Witherington and John Swales. Their 2003 Brother of
Jesus gets a mention, but is this to embarrass them for endorsing the James
Ossuary as authentic? I hope Hopper isn't implying that Witherington and Swales are "gullible". Hopper tells us that their book “coincided almost exactly with
the publication of decisive linguistic, chemical, epigraphical and
circumstantial evidence that the artefact is a fake”. Hopper cites no source for such a wide-ranging assertion, merely stating that it “was quickly
disposed of by the experts.” Why is he naming Swales and Witherington but not
the experts he has in mind? All in all, one gets a deepening sense that this essay is not entirely as one would expect in such a publication.
Besides, how much has the ossuary got to do with the matter
at hand, the linguistics he will apply? Then, Hopper does mention a forged
text, the Donation of Constantine,
but without letting us know if there are relevant textual comparisons to be
made, which seems a shame (page 148). He just wants us to contrast the
“sceptical” with “gullibility”, to make sure we expect that he isn’t gullible,
and that people who are “gullible” are in his sights.
But I must move on in order to examine the documentary evidence
base for Hopper’s analysis.
Evidence base for
testing: Textus receptus
Any test is fundamentally dependent on its evidence base. At least four issues arise in this case:
1) Any test of the TF has a problem in that the evidence base is very slim, consisting of just a few lines of text, so some caution needs to be applied in how much we think we can take from it.
2) There’s also an issue as to which version of it to rely upon. There is quite a bit to say about this, so I am covering this in Appendix 4 below. Potential effects on Hopper’s linguistic test are probably limited enough that we don’t have to worry about abandoning it; so, the potential linguistic problem should not be overstated. But some recognition of the potential problems that I set out in Appendix 4 would have been welcome, especially in regard to some of his non-linguistic assumptions which we see influencing his conclusions.
Indeed, given the linguistic challenge he sets before himself, it is limiting that Hopper relies solely on the eleventh century Greek textus receptus of Josephus. Other scholars have been examining translations that are older than it, and differ from it. This is germane. As to Hopper’s test, conclusions based on the textus receptus have to be handled with a degree of caution, unless we are confident that: 1) Greek portions analysed linguistically are not compromised portions, or if so, are not accorded more weight than caution allows; and 2) any conclusions drawn about the passage as a whole are unaffected by dependence on compromised portions. Please see Appendix 4 below for more on this problem, and how it relates to Hopper's essay.
3) Another potential issue needs to be mentioned about the evidence base. Hopper a priori excludes from his test the other two stories that are interspersed with the Pilate episodes. He does not test how they compare linguistically with the TF. To omit them from the evidence base for testing is surprising. In them, we don't meet Pilate (interestingly, we barely meet him in the TF as well), but rather feature a young Isis worshipper, and a wealthy Jewish woman respectively. Curiously, in summarily dismissing these two passages and not testing them against the TF, Hopper tells us that "clearly the Jesus episode is to be grouped thematically with the other Pontius Pilate episodes". Well, that's curious, given that Hopper is going to do all he can to argue that the Jesus passage is incompatible with the other Pilate passages. But the issue I'm drawing attention to is that the exclusion of two passages in the sequence from the test prevents him from revealing to us any linguistic similarities and differences to the TF and the other passages in the sequence.
Despite that, Hopper more than implies a couple of times that he has done some degree of testing of the TF against the whole of the rest of the Antiquties - a huge work - but never reveals how we went about that, and it's a suspect aspect of the article.
4) For his analysis, Hopper proceeds with his linguistic test on the basis that the TF entirely stands or entirely falls. He does not do a comparative analysis of partial authenticity.[1] Nevertheless, what Hopper is testing linguistically has little impact on the parts of the TF that are typically thought to be interpolated, because he is mainly focused on grammar in parts that are not normally deemed interpolated.
1) Any test of the TF has a problem in that the evidence base is very slim, consisting of just a few lines of text, so some caution needs to be applied in how much we think we can take from it.
2) There’s also an issue as to which version of it to rely upon. There is quite a bit to say about this, so I am covering this in Appendix 4 below. Potential effects on Hopper’s linguistic test are probably limited enough that we don’t have to worry about abandoning it; so, the potential linguistic problem should not be overstated. But some recognition of the potential problems that I set out in Appendix 4 would have been welcome, especially in regard to some of his non-linguistic assumptions which we see influencing his conclusions.
Indeed, given the linguistic challenge he sets before himself, it is limiting that Hopper relies solely on the eleventh century Greek textus receptus of Josephus. Other scholars have been examining translations that are older than it, and differ from it. This is germane. As to Hopper’s test, conclusions based on the textus receptus have to be handled with a degree of caution, unless we are confident that: 1) Greek portions analysed linguistically are not compromised portions, or if so, are not accorded more weight than caution allows; and 2) any conclusions drawn about the passage as a whole are unaffected by dependence on compromised portions. Please see Appendix 4 below for more on this problem, and how it relates to Hopper's essay.
3) Another potential issue needs to be mentioned about the evidence base. Hopper a priori excludes from his test the other two stories that are interspersed with the Pilate episodes. He does not test how they compare linguistically with the TF. To omit them from the evidence base for testing is surprising. In them, we don't meet Pilate (interestingly, we barely meet him in the TF as well), but rather feature a young Isis worshipper, and a wealthy Jewish woman respectively. Curiously, in summarily dismissing these two passages and not testing them against the TF, Hopper tells us that "clearly the Jesus episode is to be grouped thematically with the other Pontius Pilate episodes". Well, that's curious, given that Hopper is going to do all he can to argue that the Jesus passage is incompatible with the other Pilate passages. But the issue I'm drawing attention to is that the exclusion of two passages in the sequence from the test prevents him from revealing to us any linguistic similarities and differences to the TF and the other passages in the sequence.
Despite that, Hopper more than implies a couple of times that he has done some degree of testing of the TF against the whole of the rest of the Antiquties - a huge work - but never reveals how we went about that, and it's a suspect aspect of the article.
4) For his analysis, Hopper proceeds with his linguistic test on the basis that the TF entirely stands or entirely falls. He does not do a comparative analysis of partial authenticity.[1] Nevertheless, what Hopper is testing linguistically has little impact on the parts of the TF that are typically thought to be interpolated, because he is mainly focused on grammar in parts that are not normally deemed interpolated.
The thesis
Anyway, to the main point. Hopper’s article, as summarised
in its abstract, covers the following ground, to bring the insight of
linguistics to the literary study of narrative. He claims that the language of the TF is "incompatible" with the language of the other three Pilate passages. By language, he doesn't mean vocabulary, but rather he means language in terms of the grammar of narrative technique:
“Josephus in the Jewish
Antiquities introduces Jesus the Messiah into his history of the Jews, and
appears to report events corresponding closely to those of the Gospels,
including Jesus’s crucifixion on the orders of Pontius Pilate. A long standing
dispute exists about the authenticity of this text. The present article offers
a narratological analysis of the passage, comparing the styles of event
reporting in the passage with the three other episodes in Josephus’s Pontius
Pilate sequence. The study concludes that the uses of the Greek verb forms such
as aorists and participles are distinct in the Jesus passage from those in the
other Pilate episodes, and that these differences amount to a difference in
genre. It is suggested that the Jesus passage is close in style and content to
the creeds that were composed two to three centuries after Josephus.”
A point worth repeating: although Hopper refers to "the three other episodes in Josephus’s Pontius Pilate sequence", in so saying he is excluding from reference two other stories in the sequence that don't feature Pilate. Anyway, Hopper is claiming at least two things:
- that the way in which verbs are used signals that the passage in Josephus has “a difference in genre” that doesn’t belong;
- that the passage is close “in style and content” to early Christian creeds instead.
In so doing, he is arguing that Josephus was never its
author, but that some later Christian authored the whole thing.
How does his argument fare? Well, Hopper’s essay has made
little or no impression in academic study of the TF. You might wonder why. In
this review, I will try to explain why it might be found unpersuasive. It’s not
just a matter of the problems I’ve listed above.[2]
Framework for testing
the text
Hopper constructs a framework of linguistic aspects which –
via study of narrative as literature - he sees as potentially determinative for authenticity
of the TF, and he is focusing on verbs.[3]
He chooses to especially factor in:
- the perfective (Greek aorist) system (used in the text for foregrounding single completed main actions – and sequences of such – especially those of protagonists, things that carry forward the skeleton of a narrative); and
- the imperfective system (for less focused backgrounding, stage-setting, not so fixed on particular events, nor specific moments in time);
- and he is assuming that with his method he can identity a protagonist(s), and identify genres. (I found him a bit unclear as to what genre ought to mean here, given his lack of engagement with historiography - perhaps he just means that that an eventive narrative is itself a "genre" in a narratological sense.);
- and he claims that with his method he can declare the TF an anomaly in terms of literature. All from a narrowly drawn test of a rather short passage.
But this approach does not derive simply from study of ancient
Greek literature. He is drawing on categories from Wallis Reid’s work on French linguistics about how perfectives attach to individuals rather than groups, inter alia. Hopper cites other authors on aspects of Greek construction, such as Diver on structure in Homeric Greek, which Hopper presents as comparable.[4]
I would like to see a little more work done by scholars on the leap Hopper is making from one to the other, with specific reference to a wider review of Josephus. He considers patterns found in French literature as sufficiently applicable to the ancient Greek text of Josephus, finding one
narrative form more or less mirrored by another (relating especially to Greek aorists). He is conducting a finely calibrated test, so some caution is required here, at least with regard to some of the conclusions Hopper tries to take from his findings. His identification of the verb forms and their locations in the passages is uncontroversial in itself, as you would expect.
For those unsure what an aorist is, it's the sort of verb for you have in Greek for saying, "The boxer just punched that other man, knocked him to the ground with one blow, and raised his fist high." It's action: he did it. Heroes and villains tend to behave like that in action films: "The Joker pulled a lever to open the trapdoor. Batman jumped over it. The Joker pulled a gun, and a joke handerkerchief popped out." And so on. You get the idea. Protagonists and antagonists can act that way. Hopper's interest is in the kind of literature where aorists accrue to protagonists primarily.
For those unsure what an aorist is, it's the sort of verb for you have in Greek for saying, "The boxer just punched that other man, knocked him to the ground with one blow, and raised his fist high." It's action: he did it. Heroes and villains tend to behave like that in action films: "The Joker pulled a lever to open the trapdoor. Batman jumped over it. The Joker pulled a gun, and a joke handerkerchief popped out." And so on. You get the idea. Protagonists and antagonists can act that way. Hopper's interest is in the kind of literature where aorists accrue to protagonists primarily.
Now, supposing that this be accepted as a valid framework to
use in testing the Greek text of the TF compared to the other Pilate passages,
then to what good use does Hopper put it?[5]
His approach boils down to identifying a protagonist in events in the TF, and saying
whether it is the same protagonist as in the other Pilate passages, and the same or a different genre.[6]
We are ready to study his core argument.
The test:
1) Eventive
The other three
Pilate passages are eventive in nature, and Hopper uses that as a control for
the test. The TF is not eventive; it is more like notes. There’s no reason to
doubt that the other three Pilate passages are eventive in nature, but is that
evidence base broad enough for the test? Hopper seems aware that it might be
insufficient to divorce the TF wholesale from the Antiquities. Perhaps that is
why Hopper seems possibly tempted to exaggerate the evidence base that he has tested
against (164):
“The Aquifer episode, like the other episodes involving Pontius Pilate, has
an event structure. Time in these episodes is kairotic, that is, it is qualitative
time (kairos) experienced by individual actors. It is eventive time... By
contrast, the temporality of the Testimonium is chronic (chronos)…. It takes
place in a more remote perspective of slow changes and general truths… So the
Testimonium belongs to a different kind of time from the rest of the Jewish
Antiquities.” (emphasis added)
Where has Hopper done
this analysis of “the rest of the Jewish Antiquities”? It is unclear – because Hopper
doesn’t tell us - what assessment may have been done of the whole of the rest
of this huge work to establish this sweeping conclusion. Hopper makes such a claim more than once.[7] Such a large claim needs
to be substantiated, but evidence to that effect is lacking, and the impression
remains that it is exaggeration. This is potentially rather important to Hopper’s
thesis: are there other sections of Josephus’ works where an uneventive passage
is embedded amongst eventive ones? It would be strange if that were not so,
given how often Josephus digresses and then returns to a subject. Finding any would
see this essay's thesis collapse. So it is perhaps understandable why someone might want us to think that this never happens anywhere else in all of
Josephus’ Antiquities (and what about in Josephus’ War?). But Hopper’s claim to know that this doesn’t occur anywhere
in Antiquities is not convincingly presented. (Also, would Hopper really describe Josephus as a "pagan" witness if he had examined the whole of the Antiquities to the degree he seems to suggest?) Josephan scholars know the Jewish
historian’s work in much greater depth and breadth, and it is perhaps
unsurprising that Hopper’s thesis has made little or no headway in academia. In short, his claim about the TF against all “the rest of the Jewish Antiquities” has to be set aside. The TF up to this point cannot be divorced from the text of Antiquities.
This large claim
is made seemingly with the sole objective of making the TF seem exceptionally anomalous.
For me, alarm bells are ringing of a lack of objectivity putting his thesis at
risk. This is one of a number of extravagant claims.
But, as said, there is no reason to call into question that the other three Pilate passages are
eventive, so there is a basis for testing here. By the by, it’s obvious
that for Hopper, what carries more weight is whether particular things found in
the longer passages are found in the rather short TF, rather than whether
things found in the short TF are found in the longer passages. That’s where he
really places his weight.
So with three Pilate passages that are eventive and one that more or less isn’t, Hopper turns his attention to who the protagonists are in the stories. In his sights is the question of whether the TF belongs where we find it, and he thinks identifying a protagonist may help.
So with three Pilate passages that are eventive and one that more or less isn’t, Hopper turns his attention to who the protagonists are in the stories. In his sights is the question of whether the TF belongs where we find it, and he thinks identifying a protagonist may help.
The test:
2) Is Pilate the protagonist?
So, on pages 156-60, Hopper selects a number of excerpts
from the surrounding three story-driven eventive Pilate episodes as a control
for his test (Antiquities 18:55 to 18:89, after prior mentions of Pilate from
18:35 onwards). In order, the TF is the third of four Pilate passages, but of course there are six stories in the sequence of passages, three of which are eventive Pilate passages. So, the TF includes
the part of Pontius Pilate, which captures Hopper’s interest. Hopper more or
less describes Josephus’ other nearby Pilate passages as following a pattern of
(eventive narrative-driven) tales of Pilate versus violent rebels, which is
uncontroversial to say. Then, he seeks to persuade us that Pilate is - in a technical literary sense - the clear
protagonist in those other passages on account of how aorists in the narrative accrue
to his character’s actions. There are other ways to look at whether Pilate is a
protagonist, but the point of Hopper’s contribution is to bring linguistics to
literary studies.
In short, his test relies on his assumptions that:
- the location of aorists in those other Pilate passages is a vital determinative of his finding that Pilate is the protagonist in them
- and that an authentic TF should mirror this: that it too should be an eventive narrative, and that aorists ought to accrue to Pilate, and that Pilate should have this marker for being found to be its protagonist. (Why should it?)
Hopper then lays out the evidence base that, in the TF, aorists
do not accrue to Pilate’s single action. No disagreement need be had with that.
There is no reason to dispute the basic evidence that
aorists do not accrue to Pilate’s single action, and that this leaves the TF’s
Pilate without a marker found in the longer passages. These other passages have
more than a single action by Pilate, so it is not too surprising that their
verbal characteristics include things that are not found in the single action
in the TF, but Hopper thinks it matters a lot.
It’s Hopper’s conclusions that are so interesting, and the
point of my review is to scrutinise them: as the TF doesn’t fit the wider
observed pattern, he says, this supposedly differentiates the TF as not belonging in this piece of literature.
As if observing, in this way, that Pilate is not the protagonist, and arguing that a different genre is present (well, the particular genre he is going to suggest anyway...), is so determinative.
That, basically, is his argument in a nutshell. Relying on this method, he casts around for another chief protagonist in the TF which he’ll use
to help identify another (very particular) genre to buttress his argument that the TF must be inauthentic.
So, that test may potentially be a way of finding that
Pilate is not the protagonist in the TF. Whether it is an applicable method or
not, it does not upset the ordinary observation that Pilate is not the main
protagonist of the TF.
While Hopper places so much weight on findings from
linguistics, and has published on its connections with story-telling before, I’m unconvinced that he is going far enough in acknowledging a range of ingredients that go to make literary story-telling, or
of the weight that could be accorded to the contribution of other Josephan scholars,
or of Josephus’ literary habits.[8]
He seems to be applying a narrow analysis with a few
digressions, whereas storytelling requires analysis with more breadth (certainly
for this kind of judgment).
The test:
3) Is Jesus the
protagonist?
As for verbal forms, Hopper notes that Jesus’ activity is
portrayed by use of imperfectives, in only broad strokes, not single actions. Hopper
claims that this Jesus is “a passive participant” (page 162). “Passive” seems
to me the wrong word for it. This Jesus is portrayed with seeming
responsibility for the areas of activity ascribed to him, and only passive in
his death. Hopper also pays little regard to the fact that more areas of
activity are ascribed to Jesus than to anyone else: “a doer of wonderful works; a teacher ... He drew over to him
both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles… he appeared to them…”8
But Hopper wants to put his weight on verbs in the aorist
aspect; which he seeks to do with the next candidate.
The test:
4) Are Christians as a
group the protagonist?
Bear in mind that Hopper is assuming that the TF ought to
have a protagonist, and is assuming that aorists are more or less a sufficient
tool to identify one. On pages 160-162, Hopper argues that, insofar as the TF
counts as a narrative at all, and insofar as there are protagonists at all, it
is not Pilate but Christians as a group
who fulfil a protagonist role. Well, it is obvious that it is not Pilate, but
why Christians? Again, he is relying on observation of to whom aorists accrue. But
there is not a lot of aorists to go around in this short passage, so the evidence base is slim:
of Christians, the aorists tell us that as to following Jesus, “they have not
forsaken”; and “not ceased to exist” What such verbs ascribe to the Christians
is that they didn’t do this, and they haven’t become that. And that’s it![9]
An aorist with an action is one thing, an aorist without an action is quite
another.
Hopper, putting his weight on the location of aorists, argues
that the Christians are the overall protagonists of the whole passage. Really?
Even with those aorists, the Christians are at most present in broad strokes,
in negatives (did not forsake him, are not extinct). No specific eventive
actions are ascribed to any Christians whatsoever. This is hardly
satisfactory to meet Hopper’s own test. So how can we promote them to chief
protagonists? Hopper, perhaps anticipating that this objection is coming, lines up this truism: "Negatives
point implicitly to the corresponding affirmative" (page 162). The text merely indirectly conveys that they are still around
still following Christ, but the text does not give them the dignity of having
this ascribed to them as an action. (It merely implies a process of following,
but actionless. It’s a bit like damning with faint praise.)[10]
And that, as far as linguistics go, was Hopper’s attempt to
say that the Christians as a group are the protagonist. (He also enumerates participles, inter alia, in the passage, but he doesn't try to put much weight on that.) I don’t find Hopper’s
method producing convincing results.
Obviously aware that linguistics don’t cut it here, Hopper
seeks to buttress his argument that the Christians are protagonists. As the
actionless negative statements - “did not forsake him… are not extinct” -
hardly meet Hopper’s test, he finds a way to pull a rabbit out of the hat.
He Christianises the phrase “did not forsake him” and hands it back to us as “they haven’t
stopped worshipping him”. This
is what Hopper wants us to read into the text: a subtle shift closer to an action, one that is quite out of
proportion to “not forsaking,” and gratuitously reading Christian
meanings into quite ordinary language - not the mark of a balanced
linguistic test. It’s precisely the sort of thing that a careful scholar ought
not to be doing.[11] Hopper is supplying overtly Christian
meaning by recklessly importing into the text what he wants to find. It looks
agenda-driven.
His reason for lining up the word “worshipping” is
apparent: to argue for the TF being wholly written by and for
Christians, as if they are supposedly saying something like, ‘look, we’re
strong, and still here worshipping Jesus.’ This is the kind of way in which he makes his leap from different protagonist to different genre. It is intended to amplify his case
that the TF is inauthentic. If anything, it serves further to call into
question the objectivity of his essay.[12]
What protagonists are there, then?
Linguistics aside, if one were looking at the TF to uncover
an overall protagonist for the passage, it is too much of a scrapbook, and one
would not necessarily conclude that the Christians, or anyone else, are the overall
protagonists on any grounds. The full version of the TF can be broken down into
five chunks if we go by whom the spotlight is on. These are, in order: Jesus; Jews
and Pilate; Christians; Jesus again; and Christians again. This illustrates why
a narrow analysis, such as a linguistic one only, would be insufficient for
conclusions that require breadth. Unredacted version:
Spotlighting Jesus: Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise
man; if it be lawful to call him a man. For he was a doer of wonderful works; a
teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him
both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ.
Spotlighting Jews and Pilate: And when Pilate, at the suggestion of
the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross [to bring out the
Greek: “on indictment by the first men among us, Pilate having sentenced him to
the cross”]
Spotlighting Christians: those that loved him at the first did
not forsake him.
Spotlighting Jesus again: For he appeared to them alive again, the
third day: as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other
wonderful things concerning him.
Spotlighting Christians again: And the tribe of Christians, so
named from him, are not extinct at this day. [emphasis added]
Is “did not forsake him…. are not extinct” really enough to
make Christians the chief protagonist of that? Of course not. Not forsaking is
not directly an action, and certainly not eventive. Not being extinct isn’t an
action either.
The above confirms that Pilate is one of the active players in the TF, but does not manage to grab
the main clause of the one sentence where he appears (ditto the Jews): “on indictment by the
first men among us, Pilate having
sentenced him to the cross…” (emphasis added). It is in a subordinate
clause that Pilate has his moment, with grammar as appropriate (page 163). Pilate’s action is not in a passive voice,
note. It’s worth bearing that in mind, but it is right to say that Pilate is
not the main protagonist.[13]
I would say (and I have studied the elements of
story-telling at Masters level, so this is not a comment born of total
ignorance) that one cannot settle on the protagonists of an overall piece with
merely a single tool such as linguistics, even when reduced to verb study, when
other helpful complementary tools are also available to assist the determination.
This passage is more like jottings, and it is not warranted to insist that it
has to have a chief protagonist, not even if Hopper wants to ascribe such to
the actionless Christians as a group. In fact we need to be wary of determining
that of any of these passages. This is not Aristotelian drama. We can expand on
this point as follows, turning to the other Pilate passages.
Pilate passages: protagonists
Hopper needs us to believe that in the other three Pilate passages,
the rebel forces consistently are not
main protagonists, but that Pilate consistently is. And he wants us to
believe that this is more or less inverted in the TF.
But none of the passages are even close to, say,
Aristotelian narrative structure with any clear protagonist or antagonist. The
roles are not that clear cut – multiple protagonists and antagonists switching
roles here and there would be more like it. It’s not tidy. Pilate in large part
is an antagonistic individual who frustrates others’ plans, rather than making
his own (at times), while hindered by those acting beyond his instructions,
making him seem reactive and even a little weak (at times).
All four Pilate passages feature apparent conflict with him.
Pilate reacts to each with bloodshed, killing groups or their leader (Jesus). The
waters are too muddy for identifying indisputable protagonists and antagonists
in any of the passages. Pilate, like a protagonist seems to weigh pros and cons
in his role of keeping the status quo of the Roman peace, but the rebels too have goals (to change the status quo) and Pilate’s
main role is resisting and frustrating their attempts to achieve their goals,
ultimately becoming villainous in doing so. Linguistics alone do not resolve
this, and Hopper may have fallen into a trap of trying to tidy up something
that we are best conceding is not asking to be tidy, and into a trap of over-stating
the weight of his linguistic analysis (and he probably sensed that we would spot that, and he gives this away with what comes next, below). He seeks to buttress
his conclusions in other ways...
Pilate as stereotyped villainous
protagonist
Hopper obviously senses that his narrow analysis isn’t as
determinative as he wants it to be. So, in his bid to make the TF the odd one
out, and make Pilate a strong protagonist of the other three passages, Hopper digresses
to turn Pilate into something like a stereotyped villain, which rather
misrepresents Josephus’ portrayal. Hopper more or less wants us to see the
Pilate of the other three passages as a one-dimensional cold-hearted thug, and
the Pilate of the TF as an anomaly, a weak victim of Jewish pressure. He
writes:
“Pilate, the decisive Roman boss of the other three Pilate episodes,
ruthless scourge of the Jews and despiser of their laws, now appears as the
compliant puppet of the Jewish hierarchy [regarding Jesus].”
He seems to be suggesting this radical dichotomy in order to
make us think the TF anomalous and inauthentic. But Pilate is not quite as
Hopper claims. To ignore Josephus’ more generous comments about him is hazardous. (See Bermejo-Rubio, "Hypothetical Vorlage", page 350, n. 113.) Let’s
takes quotes from the first three of the four Pilate passages. In the first, he backs
down under Jewish pressure:
story 1: “Pilate was deeply
affected with their [the Jews] firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable:
and presently commanded the [imperial] images to be carried back from Jerusalem
to Caesarea”. [Which Hopper skates over quickly - page 154. So much for the simplistic “despiser of their laws”!]
story 2: “[the soldiers] laid upon [the Jews] much greater blows
than Pilate had commanded them”. [So much for “ruthless scourge”!]
story 3: “on indictment by the
first men among us, Pilate having sentenced him [Jesus] to the cross”. [This
does not seem inconsistent with the above.]
Note patterns in the first three [passages in which Pilate is included:
- In the first story and the third (the TF), Jewish pressure upon Pilate prevails.
- In the first two stories, Pilate’s less harsh side – if not relative weakness – is glimpsed. In the first, the Jewish hierarchy successfully prevail upon him to do what he didn’t want to do. In the second, his soldiers go further that he wanted them to go.
- In the second story and the third (the TF), other actors (certain Romans, and Jews) are more inclined to advance harsh punishment than Pilate is. In the second story, the soldiers are more responsible than he for the bloodshed. In the third, certain Jews seem perhaps more responsible than he for the execution.[14]
We can see that the TF is embedded in patterns and is actually
not inconsistent with Josephus’ portrayal of Pilate. Hopper’s stereotyping view reads Josephus with blinkers, if not distorting mirrors.
Only, finally, in the fourth story is it that Pilate
ultimately goes too far and is fully responsible for actions that see him
deposed. Only this fourth story has Pilate close to meeting Hopper’s
description. Whereas the earlier stories undermine Hopper’s position! Let’s recap
salient quotes from Josephus:
story 1: “Pilate was deeply
affected with their [the Jews] firm resolution to keep their laws inviolable:
and presently commanded the [imperial] images to be carried back”
story 2: “[the soldiers] laid upon [the Jews] much greater blows
than Pilate had commanded them”
story 3: “on indictment by the
first men among us, Pilate having sentenced him [Jesus] to the cross”
story 4: “Pilate prevented [the Samaritans] going up, by
seizing upon the roads, with a great band … the most potent of those that fled
away, Pilate ordered to be slain.”
It is a misreading of the evidence when Hopper claims that “the Testimonium is hard to reconcile with Josephus’s denunciation of Pilate’s crimes against the Jews.” Contra Hopper, only in this fourth story is
Pilate’s command absolute and he fully responsible for the worst of this
extreme clampdown. (And it serves to bring him down.) In this aspect, this
fourth is the odd one out, and for obviously intentional narrative reasons. Hopper overlooks significant similarities between the TF and the first two Pilate stories, and their differences with the last one.
All in all, it is
difficult to reconcile this evidence with Hopper’s attempt to treat the TF as
anomalous as literature. His caricature of Pilate is untenable, and seems purposed simply to
make us fall for a dichotomy and to imagine that the TF doesn’t belong as literature. As if Josephus can't vary genre and protagonists in a sequence, even though Hopper notes that authors can do so - see page 151 (authors who act in a too restricted way can be rather boring).
Genre: Christian apologetic
material?
The genre which Hopper suggests the TF to be, is a Christian genre. He has been leading up to this by magically transforming "forsaking" into "stopped worshipping", etc. The case for the TF’s genre being a Christian apologetic
falters once the question of partial authenticity is raised. Hopper wants to
convince us that the full TF must be wholly a Christian apologist’s invention. However,
as noted earlier, this is Hopper’s judgment only on an unredacted version,
whereas most scholars don’t consider an unredacted version determinative for
study of the passage.
Virtually all scholars, Christian and non-Christian, accept
that there is an element of Christian tampering with the text. After all, the suspect
full-length version of the TF looks
like it implies truth in the story of the resurrection and the messiahship of
Jesus![15]
Those bits would be strange for an unbelieving Josephus, but not for a naughty
apologist. But take out such alleged interpolations and the TF doesn’t serve an
apologetic purpose. As such it is unlikely to be the work of a Christian
apologist in toto. Many scholars think a redacted version is merely
neutral in tone; although (even worse news for Hopper’s thesis) a very strong
case has been made by Bermejo-Rubio that the redacted version of the passage
has a sly anti-Christian slant by Josephus himself. But Hopper refuses to
countenance a redacted version. In other words, his argument for it being a Christian apologetic is over-dependent on his hasty judgment against partial authenticity. (See Appendix 1 below.)
Were Roman
readers stupid?
Hopper also tries to buttress his case by re-locating the
TF’s first audience from the first century to the third/fourth century, one
that knew Christian creeds. This leads to the impression that first century
Roman readers must have been stupid.
It is interesting
to see why Hopper conjectures a later
Christian audience - one such as would find the story of Jesus familiar. Hopper’s
premise is that Josephus would want to give his readers nothing but eventive stories in this literary sequence (if
we allowed he could have had the material to write one). And he argues that
since it’s not one, we need to find an audience that could supply its own narrative meaning: a
much later Christian audience: “The temporality
of the Testimonium derives from its presumed familiarity to its audience, which
in turn is more compatible with a third century or later Christian setting than
a first century Roman one.”
Hopper is not on
secure ground. Firstly, Goldberg’s textual analysis has shown that in fact the
TF doesn’t fit in the third/fourth century as a point of origin.
Second, Roman readers were not so stupid as Hopper needs them to be. Hopper rules out, in his conjecture, a late
first-century Roman audience because he assumes they would need external
information and had none (how does Hopper know this?). That must mean that
late first century Romans had never heard of Christ, had never heard of
Christians being scapegoated for the 64AD Great Fire of Rome, and frankly must
also have been too stupid to understand a fairly simple passage while on
the other hand intelligent enough to find Antiquities otherwise
understandable. But according to Hopper, assuming that this piece of literature requires an eventive story to function for a reader, argues “The Testimonium could not be
understood as a story except by someone who could already place it in its
“intelligible whole”” [emphasis added]. Goodness, these educated literature-fed
Romans, nurtured on the sophisticated Latin poetry of Virgil and his ilk, and interested in Greek literature (otherwise they wouldn't be reading Josephus' tome in Greek), must have somehow happened to have become really poor readers, if you will forgive me for the sarcasm. Why does Hopper think that he knows that “told as a series of new events to a first century Roman audience unfamiliar with it, the Testimonium would have been a bizarre addition and probably quite unintelligible.” He seems to think that Roman readers would be all at sea, reeling with confusion, if they don't find an eventive story here. This is rather patronising towards sophisticated literate audiences past.
How many people really insist that the following is in
itself "bizarre" and "unintelligible" on its own terms? -
“Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man; if it be
lawful to call him a man.
For he was a doer of wonderful works; a teacher of such men
as receive the truth with pleasure.
He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the
Gentiles. He was [the] Christ.
And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among
us, had condemned him to the cross; those that loved him at the first did not
forsake him…” etc.
Schoolchildren read much more difficult passages than that. I acknowledge that Hopper does not claim to be a historian, but what is his knowledge of the literate
world of first century Roman readers that makes him think they would have found
it beyond their skill to understand? Wrapping his argument around words like "bizarre" and "unintelligible" does not make it so.
Hopper imagines a different audience with prior knowledge of
a bigger story. He means a Christian audience. This, he believes, is the first
audience that could have understood it. This seems to me to be an unwarranted
view, regarding Roman audiences as incapable of comprehending a few sentences
that follow chronologically. The TF does not need to be interpreted through a
tapestry of Christian knowledge to derive some meaning from it. Josephus
was not placing that much weight on it.
The TF is intelligible, while not asking to be understood as
an eventive story. It is just a thumbnail sketch of something that has some
relevant correspondences and contrasts with the Pilate material it is embedded
in. The TF is woven into the passages quite sufficiently. Hopper makes an
excessive claim that “without the Gospels the passage is incomprehensible.” We
can put this one alongside some of the other extravagant claims in his essay. Hopper
has more to say on his idea of the first audience being Christian, and he makes
a strained comparison with Christian creeds. I look at what he says about that
in Appendix 2 below.
Conclusion
In fact, the TF nicely fits in the to and fro tension
in the interplay of power between Pilate and the Jews, and the survival of one
movement contrasted with the demise of another. The meaning is all in the
context, not extraneous to it.
Hopper is a distinguished scholar, but this does not have
all the hallmarks of a distinguished work. I have the sense that all is not as
it seems and further work is required to test the validity of the conclusions
of his linguistic analysis (for example in relation to the broader base of Antiquities). This essay, however, is deeply
flawed. It is doubtful whether authenticity can be proved beyond doubt either way, but all I can say here is that Hopper has not found a way to resolve the question.
Appendix 1: Partial authenticity
It’s worth noting that, generally, scholars who have taught
in relevant disciplines in accredited academic institutions who have opined on
this subject take the view that the TF is partly authentic, partly interpolated.
(For some leads that you might wish to follow up where you can find reviews of
the academic literature, here is a handy source
list. Also see this
article for a degree of summary). The scholarly literature yields important
information about both consistencies and
inconsistencies between the TF’s content and what we would usually expect of
Josephus (useful evidence for partial interpolation), and ideally Hopper could
add valuably to this corpus.
Three phrases typically taken by scholars as evidence of tampering are: "if indeed one must call him a man", "He was the Christ"; and "he appeared to them alive again the third day." Most reconstructions remove and/or amend some or all of these phrases, and some nibble away at a few more surrounding words. Those who want to defend some or all of those phrases use differing arguments, interpreting them contextually as either positive, or neutral, or negative.
Three phrases typically taken by scholars as evidence of tampering are: "if indeed one must call him a man", "He was the Christ"; and "he appeared to them alive again the third day." Most reconstructions remove and/or amend some or all of these phrases, and some nibble away at a few more surrounding words. Those who want to defend some or all of those phrases use differing arguments, interpreting them contextually as either positive, or neutral, or negative.
However, as if no serious scholar has anything meritous to
say for partial authenticity, Hopper forces a false dichotomy on the reader (page
151), positing a clean split between “Christian commentators tending strongly (but not
universally) to support its authenticity and religious sceptics seeing it as
fraudulent.” (Hopper places himself in the latter camp.) This is
similar to his dichotomy between modern “sceptical” readings that stand
superior to earlier “credulity” and “gullibility.” But no-one has to buy into a
false dichotomy. We do not have to side with Hopper’s characterisation of
either “Christian commentators” or “religious sceptics”. We can rather also listen
to secular scholars who would not necessarily want to be bracketed in either
camp. But their contributions on partial authenticity are somehow erased from the
discussion, conveniencing Hopper’s all or nothing approach.
So, his article purports to be only for further discussion
on whether the TF is wholly authentic or wholly spurious, ironically, buying
into the approach of both some Christian apologists and religious sceptics!
Hopper appears to be something of an outlier in his somewhat
peremptory dismissal of the possibility of partial authenticity. For his study, an interesting question could arise. Does one test the linguistic-narrative patterns twice, both on whole and redacted versions (that exclude likely
interpolations)? Hopper goes only one way, testing only the full passage whole,
but his reasoning for this is limited:
“the syntax of the Testimonium
does not display the kinds of discontinuities we might expect to find if
substantial changes such as major deletions or insertions had
been made. The sentences are well formed, the use of particles such as gar and
de is appropriate, the Greek constructions are correct and
complete. In short, the passage is linguistically and conceptually integrated,
and the assumption of an originally longer text that has been substantially
shortened or of a shorter text that has been lengthened does not appear to be
warranted on purely internal linguistic grounds.” [emphasis
added]
On my points of emphasis:
1) Hopper is giving no attention to the fact that redactions
generally suggested by scholars are of just a word here, or a clause there, not
“major
deletions or insertions”. So this is a moot point.
2) The constructions may be ”correct,” but some of
them are frankly strange. Hopper gives insufficient attention to this. Whereas
Goldberg focusses on the oddities, why doesn’t a linguist like Hopper? Perhaps
it doesn’t fit into his thesis? For example, concerning the resurrection, Hopper
first translates literally as “having day again living” (similar to Goldberg) but
then goes with Feldman’s dynamic translation “restored to life.” Hopper does
not comment on the oddness of the Greek. Surely this is precisely the sort of
thing that would catch the eye of a linguist, but not here. Inattention to
things like this makes one wonder.
3) His qualification “purely” is something of a
get-out: Hopper clearly implies that other disciplines could influence conclusions, potentially in a different direction, but he doesn’t engage with
them.
There are linguistic points in favour of partial authenticity,
and there is a helpful summary by Tim O’Neill here.
Appendix 2: genre - related to Christian creeds?
We saw a signpost to Hopper's bid to dislocate the TF from the Antiquities, where he Christianised the word "forsaking" out of all proportion into "stopped worshipping". This was towards justifying his saying that this is not a genre that belongs in Josephus' writing, but rather a Christian genre. But what Christian genre is he claiming that this is? Hopper:
“The closest generic match for
the Testimonium is perhaps the various creeds that began to be
formulated in the early fourth century, such as the Nicene Creed (325 CE). Some
credal elements are clearly present: Jesus was the Messiah; he was crucified
under Pontius Pilate (passus sub Pontio Pilato, in the words of the Apostles’
Creed); he came back to life on the third day after his death; the movement
founded by him – the Christian church – continues to flourish; he performed
miracles; the biblical prophets foretold many details of his life.” (page 166)
[emphasis added]
Let’s set aside that creeds began to be formulated centuries
before he claims. Perhaps that would be nitpicking. What’s more interesting is
that Hopper is clearly putting his weight on the unredacted version of the
TF. (A redacted version typically lacks some of those
elements.) But more importantly, this critique does not convincingly suggest
that Hopper has done serious study of the texts of early creeds, not even in
regard to aorists (he refers to the Latin creed above, quoting passus sub Pontio
Pilato, so he is obviously not entirely in a position to make a linguistic judgement relating to
aorists).
It has to be said that the TF and the Nicene creed are notably
different in their treatment of Pilate, which Hopper only obliquely signposts
towards:
- Whereas the creed says that Jesus “was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate” – reducing Pilate’s part to a point where no action is ascribed to him - the TF instead speaks of Pilate as actor, “Pilate having sentenced him to the cross”.
- And whereas the creed gives the crucifixion itself theological significance, “crucified for us”, the TF does not, simply treating it as an effect of government.
- Unlike the descriptions in the TF, the creed actually has no mention of any of these:
- Jesus doing miracles;
- any mention of the church continuing to “flourish” (Hopper’s word for it), only of belief in the church.
- Also whereas the unredacted TF has the past tense “He was the Christ” (Ho Khristos outos ēn) this is not formulaic credal style material, unlike the actual creed’s notably formulaic address to “Lord Jesus Christ”.
Why does Hopper think that the TF is close to such creeds when it is so different? Curiously, he ascribes to the Nicene Creed “the sycophantic tone of the confirmed believer”, and thinks he sees something like that in the TF (page 166). This seems like a case of distorting mirrors, not perhaps out of character with many things in his essay.
It is difficult to see that his attempt to transfer the genre of the TF into the realm of Christian creeds adds any weight to his case.
It is difficult to see that his attempt to transfer the genre of the TF into the realm of Christian creeds adds any weight to his case.
By the by, sceptics who speak of the TF as completely interpolated generally refer
to it as a fourth century creation appearing first in Eusebius in the fourth century. Hopper, without explaining why, dates such interpolation
a century earlier, saying that the TF “reminds third century Christians of events
already familiar to them.
Appendix 3: Other
non-linguistic objections to the TF
Separately from linguistics, there is a somewhat one-sided
catalogue of familiar looking arrows fired against the authenticity of the TF
by Hopper (it’s not clear why Hopper peppers his essay with these well-trodden
arguments), so I will just state in brief where discussion on these tends to
go:
Patristic citations of the TF: Hopper cites Feldman
on the low amount of patristic citations of the TF (page 151), and makes an argument from silence to suggest that
the TF is spurious. Bermejo-Rubio’s article dismisses such argument from patristic
silence, questioning the significance of it.[16]
Brevity of the TF: Without seemingly being aware of
common solutions to what he sees as a problem, Hopper argues that “The
Testimonium itself is, when compared to the surrounding episodes, unusually
short. Its very brevity is a suspicious feature…” Well, it’s not that
suspicious when compared with other examples of Josephus’ moments of brevity.
(Which I have addressed in another
post.)
Non-mention by Justus of Tiberias: Hopper tries to
buttress his case by saying that not only did Josephus not mention Jesus but
neither did first century writer Justus of Tiberias. (This is actually putting
weight onto a third party, Photius, a ninth century reader of the now lost
works of Justus who records that Justus does not mention Jesus.) But arguments
from silence are hard to make stick, and we would need to have a copy of
Photius’ works to make a meaningful test of this. It would be interesting to
know, for instance, whether Jesus belongs to any class of things that Justus
normally would record – an essential to this kind of argument from silence –
but we don’t have the evidence.
Paucity of first century non-Christian sources on Jesus:
Hopper is open that his area of expertise is in other fields, so we can pass over an unawareness of the issues around the general lack of data we have for
antiquity. But to illustrate his thoughts: “The activities of a religious fanatic
who moved around Galilee and Judaea preaching a gospel of peace and salvation,
was said to have performed miracles, was followed by crowds of thousands of
adoring disciples, and within the space of a few hours invaded the hallowed
grounds of the Temple, was hauled up before the Sanhedrin, tried by King Herod,
interrogated by Pontius Pilate and crucified, all amid public tumult, made no
impression on history-writers of the period” (page 167). I don’t know how Hopper fits invading the temple into those few hours. But anyway, a previous post I
have written touches on the general problem of the paucity of ancient material
in general, and can be found here,
Hopper writes “Outside the Gospels, there is no independent
contemporary (I,e,, first century CE) account of these events.” This is about
trying, mythicist-style, to exclude no fewer than four gospels from
consideration as useful to historians of the period. And it completely
overlooks New Testament accounts outside the Gospels (such as earlier evidence
in the letters of Jesus’ younger contemporary Paul, which Hopper only accords a brief note). New Testament material
inside and outside the gospels gives historians more to work with compared to
many other significant figures in antiquity. Whatever might be said of his
views on this, this is not linguistics.
Appendix 4: reliance on the eleventh century textus receptus
As mentioned above, any test is fundamentally dependent on its evidence base. Any test of the TF has a problem as to which version of it to rely upon.
Appendix 4: reliance on the eleventh century textus receptus
As mentioned above, any test is fundamentally dependent on its evidence base. Any test of the TF has a problem as to which version of it to rely upon.
To illustrate the issues, other
scholars (e.g. Levenson
and Martin in their 2014 work) have been examining the TF’s Latin
translations that are older than the Greek textus
receptus. Any attempt at dissecting the TF linguistically ought to
take some account of the work of such scholars in order to potentially get
closer to the text of Antiquities as it could have been earlier. Otherwise,
while we may be analysing the textus receptus,
we may not be analysing the TF as it was known in, say, the fourth century or earlier.
Alice Whealey has indicated the
hazards of relying solely on the textus receptus in her
historiographical study The Testimonium Flavianum
Controversy from Antiquity to the Present (given at the 2000 SBL
Josephus Seminar). In short, ancient translations into Latin and Syriac
independently corroborate each other to reveal that there was a different, earlier
Greek text of the TF. (She notes that “Latin and Syriac writers did not read each others’
works in late antiquity. Both, however, had access to Greek works.”)
Their
shared variant reading - “he was believed/supposed to be the Christ” (significantly different from the textus receptus' “he was the Christ”) - appears both in a Latin translation used by Jerome; and also in a Syriac translation (suspected to be by 7th century James of Edessa, and quoted
in a 12th century chronicle, which scholar Shlomo Pines gets the credit for turning
up). It is clear that the text changed between "he was the Christ" and “he was believed to be the Christ” in one direction or the other. This is a loose end that could be a key to help resolve the problem of the TF's authenticity. There is no need for “he was believed to be the Christ” to exist unless it goes back to an authentic source - it is the more likely original. By the by, since it is found in these two branches that stem from a Greek original, it would be hopeless to claim that Jerome made it up to doctor the text of Eusebius (as some have done).
Whealey concludes that Jerome
“knew the original version of the Testimonium, which he probably found in
Eusebius’ Historia Ecclesiastica, which read “he was believed to be the
Christ” rather than “he was the Christ.”” Eusebius’ own text has to have been
tampered with after those translations obtained, and tampering with the Antiquities consequently happened to harmonise. Thus,
prior to tampering, the Greek text read: “he was believed to be the Christ”.
This explains why some problematic things in the TF which don’t fit with Josephus' non-Christian outlook are
found in the late Greek textus receptus of both Eusebius and Josephus, whereas
the earlier translations are free of "he was the Christ" and should be relied on in this regard. Triangulating the evidence leads here, to a redacted version.
Nothing in Hopper's essay overturns this,
since he does not follow the evidence trail away from the textus receptus.
[2] By and large, in terms of reception
of his essay, anything I can find approving of Hopper’s article tends to stem
from so-called mythicists who doubt or deny the existence of any historical
Jesus, a quite extreme position. Hopper is not wholly in that camp. He says
that the crucifixion is the “one true event” in the TF, so Hopper is not an
absolute mythicist. However, he cites Price and Doherty (mythicists) as
authorities for doubting the historicity of Jesus. (See his footnote 4).
Setting aside that the historicity of Jesus is surely not the matter at hand,
if Hopper must open up this question, why is he not referencing a more
representative range of scholarly contributions?
[3] Those categories can be subdivided
in principle; but that is a moot point here as such subdivisions cannot be
robustly taken from texts as short as the TF. In longer passages, various verb
forms could serve, with complexity potentially increasing, whereas there is
less scope for complexity in a passage as short as the TF.
[4]
Reid, Wallis (1977) “The Quantitative Validation of a Grammatical Hypothesis: The Passé Simple and the Imparfait.” Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society
. Eds. Judy Anne Kegl, David Nash and Annie Zaenen. Cambridge, Mass.: North East Linguistic Society. 315–33. And
Reid, Wallis (1977) “The Quantitative Validation of a Grammatical Hypothesis: The Passé Simple and the Imparfait.” Proceedings of the Seventh Annual Meeting of the North Eastern Linguistic Society
. Eds. Judy Anne Kegl, David Nash and Annie Zaenen. Cambridge, Mass.: North East Linguistic Society. 315–33. And
Diver, William (1969) “The System of Relevance of the Homeric Verb.” Acta Linguistica Hafniensia 12: 45–68.
[5] I
am noting but setting aside for present purposes the valid question of whether the Pilate passages supply a
wide enough Josephan sample for analysis - it is the evidence base for Hopper’s
core argument.
[6] To reiterate, Hopper’s results are based on
comparing the TF with the other three Pilate episodes. What if the TF were
compared more closely with other passages in Josephus? Might we get a different result? But I am parking that here, as this is a reviews of what Hopper does say.
[7] Hopper makes similar sweeping claim on page 165: “The Testimonium is
anchored in a radically different discourse community from that of the rest of the Jewish Antiquities.
[Emphasis added] The Testimonium reads more like a position paper, a party
manifesto, than a narrative.” Again, “of the
rest of the Jewish Antiquities”? Has Hopper actually done the full surveys
that he seems to be claiming? Perhaps this comment is predicated on his own conclusion that the TF is of the genre of Christian creeds.
[8] For example, it is worth noting that
Hopper does not allow that there might be any reason for an author such as
Josephus to vary his writing style here. But it is difficult to see why we
should deny Josephus the right to do so. In fact, there is a known pattern of
reasons why he might. Some of Josephus’ digressions are akin to modern
footnotes, a modern literary device unavailable to ancient authors. Footnotes
had not been invented. Books were published on long scrolls. Therefore, things
that we would add as footnotes to keep a text a smooth read were not so
conveniently treated in ancient texts. They pop up obtrusively in Josephus’
writing and that of other ancient writers, interrupting narratives. Hopper, a
linguist, seems to have been unaware of this literary convention, which is
somewhat unfortunate, since he is trying to convince us of what Josephus ought
to write. The TF is not untypical of Josephan digressions. In this light, it is
unlikely to be correct that verb forms alone can bear the weight of determining
authenticity – it could just be Josephus footnoting, so to speak. But in fact,
the TF is integrated into the pattern of narratives in ways
that Hopper does not note.
[9] Curiously, Hopper also includes epēgageto as an action of Christians (“many … followed”), whereas other translators find it to be an action of Christ (“he gained a following”).
[9] Curiously, Hopper also includes epēgageto as an action of Christians (“many … followed”), whereas other translators find it to be an action of Christ (“he gained a following”).
[10] At most, I and others would read
these words as Josephus displaying a modicum of irritation that the Christians
have not disappeared, as they possibly should
have done after the defeat of their leader.
[11] There is a similar example of Hopper
Christianising the meaning of the text: “on indictment by the first men among
us, Pilate having sentenced him to the cross…” in Hopper’s hands is taken to
indicate that Pilate is a ‘compliant puppet of the Jewish hierarchy’. This
interpretation is out of proportion to the actual text, and has to be a meaning
imported by Hopper from Christian Gospels such as Matthew, or later Christians influenced by that stream. And tellingly, it's to the latter that Hopper refers, and without such a Christian reference point, it is doubtful that Hopper would have come to such a stark reading, although he tries to locate it squarely in the TF (page 167). This is methodologically
unsound, inserting foreign overtones into a text which Hopper is supposed to be
analysing linguistically. Rather weakening this giant leap, in this sentence,
both the Jews and Pilate are in subordinate clauses. Hopper seems to overlook
(but Fernando-Rubio doesn’t) that “on indictment by the first men among us,
Pilate having sentenced him to the cross…” sounds like legal process, with a
sly hint of Christ being at fault – only the worst people get the cross.
[12] Hopper sides with a familiar motivation
for interpolation, “presumably by Christians embarrassed at Josephus’s manifest
ignorance of the life and death of Jesus.” (page 167) The idea that Josephus’
“ignorance” is “manifest” is merely a reiteration of Hopper’s judgment. It
shows no reflection on the passage mentioning Jesus and his brother James in
Josephus’ Antiquities Book 20 (which Hopper never mentions); nor of
Origen’s definite perception that Josephus was an unbeliever (and Hopper
actually cites Feldman making the latter point. How has Hopper, who has read Feldman, overlooked it?).
[13] This little mention of Pilate in the TF is unlike, say, the most well-known Christian creed that reduces Pilate’s prominence further: “[Jesus] was crucified under Pontius Pilate”.
[13] This little mention of Pilate in the TF is unlike, say, the most well-known Christian creed that reduces Pilate’s prominence further: “[Jesus] was crucified under Pontius Pilate”.
[14] Also in the second and third passages, we find a tidy ending about the fate of the enemy. The second ends
with “And thus an end was put to this sedition”. The third ends with “the tribe of Christians… are not
extinct at this day”. It’s a juxtaposition of endings, and deepens the sense of Josephus' irritation that the Christians aren't extinct.
[15] Scholars often suggest that a
Christian hand removed something like “they reported that” from the
resurrection wording.
[16] Most notably, third century theologian Origen, doesn’t cite the TF, but does refer emphatically to Josephus as not believing that Jesus was the Christ, which indicates squarely that Josephus did write something which left Origen with that impression. There may be good reason for Origen not discussing the TF where he was engaged in rebutting his pagan opponent Celsus. This could be so if perhaps the original TF was not favourable to Christians (which Bermejo-Rubio explores). The thing is, if Origen were trying to rebut Celsus blow by blow, it might not be very strategic in debate to invoke something that was more useful to his opponent. This could invite his opponent to deliver a blow to which Origen didn't have a matching defence.
[16] Most notably, third century theologian Origen, doesn’t cite the TF, but does refer emphatically to Josephus as not believing that Jesus was the Christ, which indicates squarely that Josephus did write something which left Origen with that impression. There may be good reason for Origen not discussing the TF where he was engaged in rebutting his pagan opponent Celsus. This could be so if perhaps the original TF was not favourable to Christians (which Bermejo-Rubio explores). The thing is, if Origen were trying to rebut Celsus blow by blow, it might not be very strategic in debate to invoke something that was more useful to his opponent. This could invite his opponent to deliver a blow to which Origen didn't have a matching defence.
Hi Colin,
ReplyDeleteI am conducting a survey of conservative Christian scholars and apologists on topics related to the authorship of the Gospels. Would you kindly participate?
1. Do you agree with this statement by conservative NT scholar Richard Bauckham that a significant majority of NT scholars rejects the eyewitness/associate eyewitness authorship of the Gospels:
“The argument of this book [“Jesus and the Eyewitnesses”]–that the texts of our Gospels are close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus–runs counter to almost all recent scholarship. As we have indicated from time to time, the prevalent view is that a long period of oral transmission in the churches intervened between whatever the eyewitnesses said and the Jesus traditions as they reached the Evangelists [the authors of the Gospels]. No doubt the eyewitnesses started the process of oral tradition, but it passed through many retellings, reformulations, and expansions before the Evangelists themselves did their own editorial work on it.” p. 240
Your answer: Yes or No
2. If you agree with Bauckham’s statement that “almost all recent scholarship” believes that the texts of our Gospels are NOT close to the eyewitness reports of the words and deeds of Jesus, do you believe that this scholarly consensus is due to an objective evaluation of the evidence, or due to a bias against the supernatural, as some conservative Christian apologists allege (see here)?
Your answer: Evidence or Bias
3. If you believe that the scholarly consensus on the authorship of the Gospels is due to a bias against the supernatural, how would you explain the fact that most Roman Catholic scholars, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, and many moderate Protestant scholars such as NT Wright, who every much believe in the supernatural and the bodily resurrection of Jesus, also reject or question the eyewitness/associate of eyewitness authorship of the Gospels? (see here)
Your answer:
Thank you very much,
Gary
hi Gary. I don't know that I quite fit in your boxes. I've seen apologists get quite irritated with me trying to address their errors! But I'll try to answer.
Delete1. Yes.
2. A bit of both.
3. I don't know their work (except NT Wright) so I can't comment. Wright seems rather agnostic on the question.
ps, Gary, on your third question, you may find this useful: https://larryhurtado.wordpress.com/2019/09/07/jesus-and-authenticity-criteria/
Delete