SHORT NOTE ON ΤΙΣ IN THE TESTIMONIUM FLAVIANUM RECENSION IN EUSEBIUS, CODEX A
In two recent articles by Dave Allen and Fernando Bermejo Rubio,[1] there is a noted textual variant in the Slavonic and Eusebian recensions of Josephus’s work regarding Jesus. In one Greek recension of the Testimonium Flavianum (Josephus, Antiquities 18.63–64) as quoted in Eusebius’s work, the word τις (Ecclesiastical History 1.11 Codex A) occurs after the name of Jesus. On a related stream, the words muzi nekij (which might be a translation of the Greek ἀνήρ τις[2]) occur in the Slavonic. According to Allen and Bermejo Rubio, these recensions provide us with solid reasoning for considering there to be an initially negative outlook of the Testimonium Flavianum,[3] assuming that such a text is not simply a complete forgery as has been routinely suggested.[4] The argument is rife with profound problems and evinces that not enough investigation of the usage of this term both in Christian and non-Christian sources has been done.
Greco Roman Usage:
In Greco-Roman non-Christian and non-Jewish literature, both the unqualified τις (as found in Eusebius) and the fuller ἀνήρ τις (which Allen proposes is behind the Slavonic phrase muzi nekij) are utilized in a nonhostile and non-negative sense to simply introduce a character.[5] Just a brief survey demonstrates various authors from Herodotus, Sophocles, Plutarch, and Pindar all utilizing this phraseology in a neutral fashion simply to introduce previously known figures into the narrative. It has no inherent negative connotation with any of these, and in fact can introduce characters to whom they have a relatively positive disposition toward.
Jewish and Christian Literature:
However, it may be averred that a more relevant context would be Jewish and Christian literature. Allen contends, for instance, that Josephus only utilizes the phrase as a negative, citing Antiquities 20.97 and Jewish War 2.118.[6] In this sense, we must take (ἀνήρ) τις as having an unstated sense of “a certain [unwanted] person.” Bermejo Rubio, in attempting to emphasize the relevance of this variant, claims:
The precise meaning of this Ἰησοῦς τις cannot be ascertained a priori. Admittedly, Josephus sometimes uses the pronoun without derogatory connotations to refer to people for whom he feels respect (even for venerable figures as Abraham), but in these cases he cites these people for the first time. Josephus often refers in this way to the persons whom he deems responsible for riots or disastrous episodes among the Jewish people in order to emphasize more clearly the shift between their bombastic claims and their objective insignificance.[7]
However, even here he is forced to concede that Josephus also utilizes the term without derogatory associations when first introducing a person to a narrative. In distinction from this, he notes the term is utilized for various figures toward whom Josephus has a negative disposition (citing Antiquities 17.433; 19.273; 20.97; Jewish War 2.60; 2.433; 2.599 3.229).[8]
Perusing these citations, however, makes things far more ambiguous than either Allen or Bermejo Rubio would actually like us to believe. For instance, the usage of τις in 20.97 (per Allen) actually specifically shows how τις is neutral unless it is additionally qualified by other language. Here there is a “certain man Theudas” (τις ἀνὴρ Θευδᾶς), a neutral phrase on its own, but what qualifies this as negative is (1) his depiction as a rioter, and (2) the preceding term γόης, i.e., γόης τις ἀνὴρ Θευδᾶς. This is due to a frequent negative association with magi.[9] As a result, the negative sentiment is not expressed by τις ἀνὴρ but instead by γόης, which Allen has missed. This likewise applies to Jewish War 2.118 in reference to Judas the Galilean. Here the negative connotations come from his leading his countrymen in revolt. These issues pervade Bermejo Rubio’s examples as well. For example, Jewish War 2.60 does not use τις as a negative, but introductory term, while the negative portrayal comes from this Athrongeus leading revolt. In no case cited does τις (ἀνὴρ) seem to carry an inherently negative intonation. Instead, the negative portrayals arise due to the characterizations and other terminology. In contrast to this, we can show that Josephus frequently uses the term (contra Bermejo Rubio’s attempt to lessen this with “sometimes”) without any negative connotation at all, and even for persons which Josephus has a positive disposition toward.[10] Making this even more challenging is that there are even examples of Eusebius utilizing this terminology without negative connotations.[11] Even worse, this phrase is also utilized in the New Testament quite frequently to neutrally introduce Jesus’s own followers, among others.[12]
However, this argument becomes severely challenging (in fact particularly weak) even if we assume the accuracy of Allen’s and Bermejo Rubio’s claims. Assuming we take τις as a derogatory or hostile term of address for Jesus, is it really true (per Allen) that, “This derogatory expression argues against the TF being made up of whole cloth. No scribe would have interpolated the word τις, but this phrase could have escaped a copyist attempting to interpolate the original [Testimonium Flavianum]”?[13] I contend strongly against this conclusion, and it is evident this is not borne out by a careful review of Christian literature. In fact, while perusing the Acts of the Apostles, one can stumble across Acts 25:19 where we find:
ζητήματα δέ τινα περὶ τῆς ἰδίας δεισιδαιμονίας εἶχον πρὸς αὐτὸν καὶ περί τινος Ἰησοῦ τεθνηκότος, ὃν ἔφασκεν ὁ Παῦλος ζῆν
Instead, they had points of contention against him concerning their own fear of the gods* and concerning a certain Jesus who had died yet Paul claimed to be alive.[14]
*People often translate this “religion” but it often is derogatory designating fear of the gods or superstition.
Here the word τινος is simply the Genitive masculine singular of τις. Thus, we actually have a precedent for how Christians themselves imagined non-Christians to speak of and introduce Jesus (τινος Ἰησοῦ). This means if τις really was a derogatory or negative term, Christians could still create narratives and accounts utilizing it to mimic the voices and concerns of non-Christians. Confirming this is also Eusebius, Praeparatio Evangelica 1.2.6 where Eusebius imagines non-Christians again speaking of τις εἴη Χριστὸς (“a certain Christ”)[15] and Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho 108 (Ἰησοῦ τινος) in imagining how his Jewish opponents would introduce and then negatively characterize Jesus. In short, we have ample evidence that, negative or not Christians would certainly utilize this term for those they have positive dispositions toward and on multiple occasions also imagined their opponents utilizing τις of Jesus himself.
Conclusions:
This means that no matter how τις is taken it cannot stand as evidence of any original Josephan language or evidence of a pre-Christian negative Testimonium Flavianum. Instead, the term is frequently use without any negative connotations whatsoever in pagan, Jewish, and Christian literature, and even with negative connotation inaccurately and unjustifiably assumed (just to give the grant the best case for Allen and Bermejo Rubio), we still have evidence of Christians utilizing this frequently in the voice of their opponents. These sorts of arguments pervade attempts to salvage the Testimonium Flavianum and also the James Passage (Antiquities 20.200[16]) and are entirely unconvincing. As such, we can dismiss Allen and Bermejo Rubio’s contentions based on muzi nekij in the Slavonic and τις in Codex A as having any significance for reconstructing an originally negative Testimonium Flavianum. In all likelihood, this is just a scribal emendation that came into Codex A during its transmission. I see no convincing reason why this must go back to any original.
ADDENDUM:
In a recent blog post, Dave Allen has since contended that τις (“certain”) is original and causes problems for interpolation theories for two other reasons: (1) It is multiply attested by the Slavonic and Codex A, and (2) “To Christian’s this word meant nothing but for Josephus to call somebody a ‘certain so and so’ is to denote somebody unimportant” (here).
Both of these suggestions do not stand up to scrutiny. The second one is disproven by this analysis, since Josephus regularly uses this to introduce figures who play important parts in his narratives, i.e., unlike the sign prophets, he frequently uses τις for important and unimportant figures alike. As a result, that suggestion does not stand the test of analysis. Additionally, one struggles to know why this reasoning is important. As noted above, since Christians would also utilize this language for both important and unimportant figures (including Jesus, the disciples, or random persons), we can see that this phrase causes absolutely no problems on the hypothesis of an interpolation.
With regard to the first point, Allen’s suggestion is not borne out. There is no reason why a Christian scribe would remove (ἀνήρ) τις from their text, since (as noted above) there are no negative or even problematic connotations to the phrase, and they had no reason thinking this is how a Jewish author would speak. As a result, the fact that Codex A is missing ἀνήρ, which is needed for the Slavonic muzi nekij. A more difficult note, however, is that this would be a fairly easy term to just insert when one is copying a passage from memory or similar. Lastly, this also just presumes that the Slavonic is independent from Eusebius, which I have not found any convincing reason to think so, as Olson has argued repeatedly in our mutual groups. Specifically, the Slavonic is likely stemming from an older tradition that is using George Hamartolus, whose chronicle actually did contain the Testimonium Flavianum derived from Eusebius (here).
As a final note, it is misleading to say that the Slavonic omits Jesus’ name. It should be noted that its version of the Testimonium Flavianum is likewise interrupted with other text, including some apparently derived from the Gospel of John. If you actually continue reading this section, this TF actually does name Jesus further down (here). It actually omits several sections and expands on the TF in order to create an even longer narrative tying the Jewish War to the death of Jesus. Notably, Allen simply overlooks that the Slavonic also omits Pilate’s name at the beginning as well. It is clearly because the Slavonic author planned to extend the narrative and name them later. As such, I can fairly easily explain why Jesus’ name was “removed.” It is because it was not “removed” but it was just placed down lower in the text in service of expanding the narrative.
Given this, we can reject these arguments for Allen’s negative reconstruction. They do not withstand close scrutiny.
Footnotes:
[1] David Allen, “A Model Reconstruction of What Josephus Would Have Realistically Written About Jesus,” Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism 18 (2022): 113–43; Fernando Bermejo-Rubio, “Was the Hypothetical ‘Vorlage’ of the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’ a ‘Neutral’ Text? Challenging the Common Wisdom on ‘Antiquitates Judaicae’ 18.63–64,” Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Period 45, no. 3 (2014): 326–65.
[2] Allen, “A Model Reconstruction,” 126.
[3] Allen, “A Model Reconstruction,” 115–16, 126; Bermejo Rubio, “Hypothetical Vorlage,” 358.
[4] Ken Olson, “Eusebius and the ‘Testimonium Flavianum’,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 61, no. 2 (1999): 305–22; Yu Ke, Yu Ke Xiansheng wenji, ed. Long Xiuping (Beijing: Zhongguo shehui kexue chuban she, 2020), 5; Per Bilde, “Josefus’ beretning om Jesus,” Dansk Teologisk Tidsskrift 44 (1981): 99–139 (per Olson); Paul Hopper, “A Narrative Anomaly in Josephus: Jewish Antiquities xviii:63,” in Linguistics and Literary Studies: Interfaces, Encounters, Transfers, ed. Monika Fludernik and Daniel Jacob (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2014), 147–71; Nicholas P. L. Allen, Christian Forgery in Jewish Antiquities: Josephus Interrupted (Newcastle Upon Tyne: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2020), 98–228; Joachim Gnilka, Jesus Christus nach frühen Zeugnissen des Glaubens (Kempten: Kösel, 1970), 67 states, “Das sogenannte Testimonium Flavianum muß als spätere christliche Interpolation ausscheiden”; Yan Changyou, “Yesu — chuanshuo zhong de xugou renwu,” Shijie zongjiao yanjiu 2 (1983): 122–28; Iosif Kryvelev, Kniga o Biblii: Nauchno-populyarnyye ocherki (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo sotsial’no-zkonomicheskoy literatury, 1958), 129–30; Yvon Thébert, “À propos du triomphe du Christianisme,” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 14 (1988): 277–345 (320–21n20 citing Herrmann).
[5] Pindar, Olympian 1.100 (θεὸν ἀνήρ τις) where it is used for “a certain god”; Plutarch, Life of Agis 5 (τις ἀνὴρ) using it of a certain powerful man; Herodotus, Histories 3.34 where Cambyses asks what “manner of man” (τις δοκέοι ἀνὴρ) the Persians thought of him, in comparison to Cyrus. Here the question is neutral. For the general usage of only τις one can see Sophocles, Philoctetes 440 (Θερσίτης τις ἦν).
[6] Allen, “A Model Reconstruction,” 127.
[7] Bermejo Rubio, “Hypothetical Vorlage,” 358.
[8] Bermejo Rubio, “Hypothetical Vorlage,” 358n152.
[9] For example, in Acts, see Eric Vanden Eykel, The Magi: Who They Were, How They’ve Been Remembered, and Why They Still Fascinate (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2022), 42–47. As Vanden Eykel notes, however, the LXX Daniel uses the term in a grey way (The Magi, 52–53). Likewise, Philo of Alexandria reveals his own negative perception of magi (Vanden Eykel, The Magi, 56).
[10] For example, Josephus frequently uses it of his countrymen and “certain” Judeans and also men of high repute like Eleazar and even the prophets. Likewise, he also uses it to introduce mundane characters as well. For examples, see Antiquities 9.10; 10.67; 14.22; 16.231; 16.387; 18.91 (to introduce Hyrcanus); 18.195; 19.217; 19.256; 19.332; 20.34; 20.43; 20.130 and also Jewish War 1.82; 1.220 (τισιν ἄλλοις); 1.544; 1.547, etc. This list is hardly exhaustive even of the specific chapters cited.
[11] Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 3.4. Notably, in Ecclesiastical History 2.11 also refers to the prophet Theudas (γόης τις ἀνήρ, Θευδᾶς) where the negative connotation comes from γόης instead of τις ἀνήρ.
[12] Mark 7:2 (Jesus’s disciples); Luke 24:22 (Simon of Cyrene)/
[13] Allen, “A Model Reconstruction,” 126.
[14] Translation mine.
[15] This was pointed out to me online by Ken Olson.
[16] For instance, Alice Whealey, “Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum,” in Christoph Böttrich, Jenz Herzer, and Torsten Reiprich (eds.), Josephus und das Neue Testament (Tubingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 73–116 contends (111) that λεγόμενος is an unlikely Christian interpolation because it implies distance. But again, we have strong evidence that Christians did utilize distancing language on purpose for Jesus in places when imagining the words and deeds of their opponents (Matt. 1:16 and 27:17; John 9:11; Col. 4:11. Likewise, there is no evidence of this word carrying an inherently negative connotation (contra some), see Graham Twelftree, “Jesus in Jewish Tradition,” in The Jesus Tradition Outside the Gospels, ed. David Wenham (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1985), 289–332 (at 300).
