Five points need to be stressed with this variant of the Testimonium Flavianum.
1. The arguments here do not accept Eusebius as the initial person to have tampered the TF. Tampering of the TF has happened before and after Eusebius.
2. The passage received by both Eusebius and Pseudo Hegesippus was already tampered with.
3. In examining the TF quote contained in the Excidio, the points of agreement with Eusebius show that both used a tampered passage. (See the bold print in the quote below).
4. How we know Pseudo Hegesippus did not use Eusebius is that he would have used Eusebius phrase that he himself inserted – “He was believed to be Christ” (as evidenced by Jerome).
5. We know the TF was also tampered after Eusebius as the textus receptus has “He was the Christ” yet Whealeys scholarship shows the earlier phrase “he thought to be the Christ” which came from Michael the Syrian which in turn derived from Eusebius. This is similar enough to he was “thought to be the Christ”.
Let us now reproduce the passage in full:
They indeed paid the punishments of their crimes, who after they had crucified Jesus the judge of divine matters, afterwards even persecuted his disciples. However a great part of the Jews, and very many of the gentiles believed in him, since they were attracted by his moral precepts, by works beyond human capability flowing forth. For whom not even his death put an end to their faith and gratitude, on the contrary it increased their devotion. And so they brought in murderous bands and conducted the originator of life to Pilatus to be killed, they began to press the reluctant judge. In which however Pilatus is not absolved, but the madness of the Jews is piled up, because he was not obliged to judge, whom not at all guilty he had arrested, nor to double the sacrilege to this murder, that by those he should be killed who had offered himself to redeem and heal them. About which the Jews themselves bear witness, Josephus a writer of histories saying, that there was in that time a wise man, if it is proper however, he said, to call a man the creator of marvelous works, who appeared living to his disciples after three days of his death in accordance with the writings of the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him. From which began the community of Christians and penetrated into every tribe of men nor has any nation of the Roman world remained, which was left without worship of him. If the Jews don’t believe us, they should believe their own people. Josephus said this, whom they themselves think very great, but it is so that he was in his own self who spoke the truth otherwise in mind, so that he did not believe his own words. But he spoke because of loyalty to history, because he thought it a sin to deceive, he did not believe because of stubbornness of heart and the intention of treachery. He does not however prejudge the truth because he did not believe but he added more to his testimony, because although disbelieving and unwilling he did not refuse. In which the eternal power of Jesus Christ shone bright because even the leaders of the synagogue confessed him to be god whom they had seized for death. And truly as god speaking without limitation of persons or any fear of death he announced also the future destruction of the temple. But the damage of the temple did not move them, but because they were chastized by him in scandal and sacrilege, from this their wrath flared up that they should kill him, whom no ages had held. For while others had earned by praying to do what they did, he had it in his power that he could order all things what he wished to be done.
Pseudo-Hegesippus, De excidio 2.12
We can tell that Ps-Hegesippus did not use Eusebius. His Christianised document had “leaders of the synagogue confessed him to be god” and would not have dropped the phrase “he was the Christ”, even a paraphrase would not drop that phrase.
A better explanation is that an already tampered TF was received by both Ps-Hegesippus and Eusebius. This is seen from the points of contact, an example I give below. Realistically Josephus would have called Jesus a pseudo prophet as he did other sign prophets. A new paper of mine sees Jesus as one in a series of sign prophets that Josephus reports about. So this would have initiated a Christian to change this. This tampered passage already had some clever Christian use the Emmaus passage in gospel of Luke to add “for or the prophets of God had prophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him.” Ps-Hegesippus paraphrase has “the prophets, who prophesied both this and innumerable other things full of miracles about him.”
Here is an extract from my paper: David Allen, A MODEL RECONSTRUCTION OF WHAT JOSEPHUS WOULD HAVE REALISTICALLY WRITTEN ABOUT JESUS, JGRChJ 18 (2022) pp.124-5.
This Christianised Latin adaptation of Josephus’s War is independent of Eusebius. As Paget states,
“The importance of this reference lies in the fact that Pseudo-Hegesippus writes independently of Eusebius. This is made clear by the fact that he refers to Josephus’ account of John the Baptist after the TF, following the Josephan order and not the Eusebian order as we find it in HE, and at an earlier point in the same book (2.4) (cf. Ant. 18.3.4) refers to the Paulina incident which Eusebius never mentions. [43]
De excidio was created out of the Greek War in c. 370 CE, but it is known that this author had direct access to Antiquities, not only from Paget’s points but also from the report of pestilence which followed Herod’s execution of his wife Mariamne (1.38; cf. Ant. 15.7, 9). This paraphrase does not blame Pilate for crucifying Jesus (which could be explained by the general trend of Pseudo-Hegesippus taking the blame off the Romans and placing it onto the Jews) nor does it state that Jesus was the Messiah. ‘It is not easy to see why he should have omitted any reference to Jesus as the Messiah if it was in his version of the received text. After all, he appears to exaggerate the significance of the TF, most blatantly in his claim that even the leaders of the synagogue acknowledged Jesus to be God.’ [44] If the statement ‘he was the Christ’ was in Pseudo-Hegesippus’s received text he would have used that exact phrase. Jerome’s recension had ‘he was believed to be the Christ’ which shows it is earlier than the TF. Jerome’s recension was known to have used Eusebius’s version as Jerome literally copied it from the Historia ecclesiastica. [45] Interestingly, in two manuscripts of Rufinus’s translation of Eusebius’s Historia ecclesiastica, the same phrase is used. [46] Pollard observed, ‘the Latin manuscripts are generally much earlier than the surviving copies of the Greek original, meaning that we need to know the Latin before we can restore Josephus’ Greek.’ [47] The importance of the De excidio usage of the TF is that his received text from Antiquities was prior to Eusebian tampering.
As Nussbaum states,
In De excidio Hierosolymitano 2.12, Pseudo-Hegesippus paraphrases the TF, omitting the statement that Jesus was the Christ. He then vehemently criticises Josephus that he testified of Jesus but did not believe in him as the Christ. It can be concluded that Pseudo-Hegesippus must have read a kind of TF, otherwise he would not have screamed that Josephus did not believe despite his report on Jesus. The situation is reminiscent of Origen writings—he wrote that Josephus did not believe in the messiahship of Jesus. [48]
———————————-
Here are the footnotes from my paper for the extract above:
[43] Paget, ‘Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity’, Journal of Theological Studies, 52/2, Oxford, (2001), pp. 566-67.
[44] Paget, ‘Some Observations’, p. 567.
[45] Jerome used Eusebius’s Historia ecclesiastica when he reproduced the TF: ‘that Eusebius Pamphilus in the ten books of his Church History has been of the utmost assistance’ (Vir. ill. 13). This recension is earlier than the TF. Jerome’s recension has ‘he was believed to be Christ,’ which is what Eusebius wrote into the TF. The other Latin translation De excidio is a paraphrase but what makes this interesting is that he took from a copy of Antiquities before Eusebius tampered with it. It means that one translation of Jerome is before the TF but after Eusebius. The other translation of Ps-Hegesippus is before both the TF and before Eusebius tampering.
[46] See David B. Levenson and Thomas R. Martin, ‘The Latin Translations of Josephus on Jesus, John the Baptist, and James: Critical Texts of the Latin Translation of the Antiquities and Rufinus’ Translation of Eusehius’ Ecclesiastical History Based on Manuscripts and Early Printed Editions’, JSJ 45 (2014), pp. 1-79 (25), who say, ‘By far the most interesting variant in the texts we are discussing is the reading et credebatur esse Christus for Christus hic erat, which is found in two manuscripts of Rufinus currently in the Bayerische Staatsbibliothek: Clm 6383 from the late eighth century and Clm 6381 from the early ninth century.’
[47] Richard M. Pollard, ‘The De excidio of “Hegesippus” and the Reception of Josephus in the Early Middle Ages’, Viator 46 (2015), pp. 65-100 (72).
[48] Johannes Nussbaum, ‘Das Testimonium Flavianum: Ein authentischer Text des Josephus’, NovT 52 (2010), pp. 72-82.
Dave Allens blog 