Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania

Slavonic Josephus: A Retraction

Author(s): J. Spencer Kennard, Jr.
Reviewed work(s):
Source: The Jewish Quarterly Review, New Series, Vol. 39, No. 3 (Jan., 1949), pp. 281-283
Published by: University of Pennsylvania Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1452977 .
Accessed: 03/09/2012 21:50

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

University of Pennsylvania Press and Center for Advanced Judaic Studies, University of Pennsylvania are
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Jewish Quarterly Review.

http://www.jstor.org
 SLAVONIC JOSEPHUS: A RETRACTION

J. SPENCER KENNARD, JR., New York

WITH personal gratitude to Dr. Solomon Zeitlin for

exposing my error I herewith submit my retraction con-
cerning Slavonic Josephus on the arrest of Jesus., We have
no grounds for assuming that the passage might contain
"an element of genuine historical tradition" (p. 166). I did
make clear, contrary to the view of Dr. Zeitlin (p. 179f),
that Eisler's theory of a link with Josephus must be rejected
"in toto" (p. 166). But it was inexcusable of me to have
been misled by Eisler's spurious translation.
Attractive as are the plausible details about an alleged
outer circle of one hundred and fifty "helpers", and the
comment "he disdained us not" about the response of Jesus
to hopes of independence, the passage is a forgery. If further
proof of its Christian origin were needed to supplement that
given by Dr. Zeitlin, it is found in the concluding words:
"they", the Jews, "crucified him according to the law of
their fathers."
In wider perspective, fortunately, confession of error is
not required. It is significant that Dr. Zeitlin and I seem
agreed concerning Christianity's political origns. When he
speaks of Apocalyptists as "forerunners of Christians" he
supports my central thesis. These Apocalyptists, as he
notes in his quotation from the genuine Josephus, "were
procuring innovations and changes in government" (Wars
2.13.4).

I Solomon Zeitlin, "The Hoax of the 'Slavonic Josephus' ," JQR ns

39 (1948), p. 171 ff. Cf. pages 166-168 of my article, "Gleanings from

the Slavonic Josephus Controversy," in ibid., p. 161 ff.
281
282 THE JEWISH QUARTERLY REVIEW

The link with these patriots, whom Josephus slanders as

"wicked men" and "murderers", is further strengthened by
mention in the same passage of the common element of
"divine inspiration". It marks the outstanding difference
between Christianity and normative Judaism. This inspira-
tion assumed different forms: to those who, according to
Josephus, "deceived and deluded the people" it was stupen-
dous miracles; to Jesus and his followers, the charismata of
the Last Days (Acts 2.17 ff.). Its ultimate origin, in
common with the Christian theophagy, may be in a Pales-
tinian Dionysiac cult.
My appeal to the Slavonic Josephus was superfluous. The
political aims of Jesus are implicit in his preaching of the
Kingdom, in the Elijah role he assumed in going up to
Jerusalem, and above all in his own secret purpose as
Messiah. The title Messiah was always linked with politi-
cal action; attempts to prove otherwise have failed to
discount poetic metaphor. Among proofs that the title was
assumed by Jesus are the embarrassment it caused, the need
to metamorphose its meaning, the alleged resurrection, the
parousia, and the Christian community itself.
Less convincing are Dr. Zeitlin's remarks about Eusebius.
He advances no proof to show that the three variants, under
which the passage about Jesus in Josephus are cited, "were
not due to Eusebius but to later scribes" (p. 175). His
argument is cogent for the citation in Theophania 5.44,
because the Syriac version is corrupt and shows stages of
transmission; the Josephus quotation comes near the end
and might even belong to material completed after the
death of Eusebius. But the dictum is less convincing for
the variants in Demonstratio Ev. 3.5 and H. E. 1.11, where
the text is better attested.
More dubious, is the argument about cv/Xov being proof
of Eusebian authorship. Aside from Justin Martyr in
 SLAVONIC JOSEPHUS: A RETRACTION-KENNARD 283

Trypho 119, there is no reason for believing that its use had
been restricted to "barbarians". The quasi-synonyms
y&vos, cWvos,and Xa6s are as old as 1 Peter 2.9. The
same idea is repeated in pre-Eusebian works like the
Protrepticus of Clement (C. E. 185) in chapter 4 and Ep.
Diognetus 5f. Eusebius is using 4viXovin much the sense of
Tertullian's genus tertium in Scorpiace 10; Ad Nat. 1.8;
1.20, an accusation placed on the lips of foes, which
Christians soon appropriated to themselves. Its origins are
Jewish.2 Even though Eusebius is partial to 4viXov,as Zeitlin
has proven, at most its use in the Josephus passage could
indicate that the textus receptus bears the imprint of his
editing.

2
L. Baeck, "Das Dritte Geschlecht," in Jewish Studies in Memory
of George A. Kohut (1935), p. 40 ff.