May 052015
 
Opera quae extant omnia :  nempe, Antiquitatum Judaicarum libri XX Sigismundo Gelenio interprete, De bello Judaico libri VII interprete Rufino Aquilejensi, Liber de vita sua cum interpretatione Gelenii, Adversus Apionem libri II cum versione antiqua ˆ Gelenio emendata, & De Maccabaeis seu de imperio rationis liber cum paraphrasi Erasmi Roterodami : accedit index locupletissimus : juxta editionem Graeco-Latinam Genevensem ad manuscriptos Palatinae bibliothecae codices castigatam quae nunc ˆ pluribus mendis expurgata & praeterea prolegomenis & appendice auctior redditur. by Josephus, Flavius*

Josephus’ Antiquities, Greek and Latin

In their article on “The Latin Translations of Josephus on Jesus, John the Baptist, and James” (Journal for the Study of Judaism 45, pp. 1-79), Levenson and Martin discuss the fact that four passages quoted from Josephus by Eusebius in the Latin translation of Rufinus appear with very similar wording in the Latin translation of the Antiquities conducted later under Cassiodorus (the passages on Jesus, the one on John, and two others, which mention high priests, including Caiaphas, and the death of Herod the Great). They write:

“In the Testimonium, LAJ makes only two minor stylistic changes in Rufinus’ text (et in place of –que and gentibus for gentilibus). LAJ ’s decision to reproduce Rufinus’ version of the Testimonium so precisely and the lack of any significant textual variation in the manuscript tradition of the Testimonium in LAJ might reflect a special regard for the exact wording of this passage. However, it should be noted that LAJ clearly depends on Rufinus in two other cases (AJ 17.168-170/HE 1.8.6-8 and AJ 18.34-35/HE 1.10.5). In the seven other extended AJ passages quoted by Eusebius there is no significant verbal overlap between LAJ and Rufinus.” (p. 58)

This post offers some quantitative analysis that confirms these conclusions. It goes on to ask why some passages in the sixth century translation of Josephus’ Antiquities into Latin might show this very significant verbal overlap, indicating use of the Latin text of the quotes of Josephus in the translation of Eusebius made by Rufinus, while others do not.

Levenson and Martin provide a detailed listing of the passages that they took into consideration:

“Whealey, Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy, 34-35 correctly notes this and the fact that the account of the death of James in LAJ does not use Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius. We have checked nine other passages Eusebius reproduces from Josephus: HE 1.8.68 [nota bene: HE 1.8.6-8] (AJ 17.168-170), HE 1.5.4 (AJ 18.1), HE 1.5.5 (AJ 18.4), HE 1.10.5 (AJ 18.34-35), HE 2.53-55 [nota bene: HE 2.5.3-5] (AJ 18.257-260), HE 2.10.3-9 (AJ 19.343-351), HE 2.11.2-3 (AJ 20.97-98), 2.12.1 (AJ 20.101), HE 2.20.2-3 (AJ 20.180-181). In seven cases there is very little verbal overlap, but for HE 1.8.6-8 (AJ 17.168-170) and HE 1.10.5 (AJ 18.34-35) LAJ clearly depends on Rufinus.” (p. 6 n. 14)

This scatter plot shows that the quotations of Josephus by Eusebius in Rufinus’ translation, when compared against the Latin translation of the Antiquities, divide neatly into two groups. One group has less than 40% of words overlapping and no more than 5 words in order shared. The other group has at least 50% of words overlapping and at least 10 words in order shared.

chart-latin-ant

Quotations of Josephus by Eusebius in Rufinus. Compared by percentage of words overlapping with LAJ (x-axis) and with the longest string of words in order shared with LAJ (y-axis).

From left to right, the red dots represent the passage on Herod the Great’s death, the passage on high priests such as Caiaphas, the passage on John the Baptist, and the passage on Jesus.

Any Connection to the Content of the Gospels?

Now we might next want to know why certain passages have this connection while others don’t. Looking at the content of the passages, in relation to the New Testament, is a promising approach. For example, if we look at the primary subject or subjects of the passage and consider whether this person is a character in the Gospel of Matthew, the groups split perfectly.

Regards a character in the Gospel of Matthew Does not regard a character in the Gospel of Matthew
Latin from Rufinus 4 0
Latin not from Rufinus 0 8

Chi-square value: 12
degrees of freedom: 1
p-value: 0.0005

If we expand the scope on the one side to include secondary characters mentioned in a passage (including James the brother of Jesus in Ant. 20.200) and the other Gospels (which brings in the mention of Cyrenius by Luke), the table looks like this.
Mentions a character in the Gospels Does not mention a character in the Gospels
Latin from Rufinus 4 0
Latin not from Rufinus 2 6

Chi-square value: 6
degrees of freedom: 1
p-value: 0.0143

The groups are significantly different at the p-value < 5% significance level.

This suggests that the passages quoted from Josephus by Eusebius (and thus in Rufinus’ translation) that were more likely to influence the Latin translation of Josephus’ Antiquities regarded characters mentioned in the Gospels (and, perhaps, especially if the character were the main subject of the passage and appeared in the Gospel of Matthew).

So, What Was the Second Source of the Latin Antiquities?

In a recent post on The Quotable Josephus, the eminent suitability of Josephus as a source of excerpts was explored. The explanation offered here is that the translators of the Antiquities into Latin made use of an intermediary text (not the Latin translation of Eusebius directly) that quoted from Josephus in the Latin wording of Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius. This explains three things:

(1) Why the translators lean on the existing translations made by Rufinus on only four occasions, when there are also several other quotations (and some longer quotations) that are found in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius that do not get used at all in the Latin translation of Josephus’ Antiquities.

(2) Why the usage noted cleaves cleanly between the passage that provide support and background for the characters in the Gospel of Matthew (or the Gospels generally) and those which do not. The intermediary source found these to be more relevant as excerpts.

(3) How Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius (indirectly) occurred to the translators of Josephus as a good source to use for translating Josephus. If the intermediary source were brief (or were titled), so as to make the connection with Josephus clear, it is easy to see it being brought to bear on the translation (of Josephus) effort.

A future post will look at how the translators of Josephus have used this Latin source that itself derives from Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius. The rest of this post is given over to a presentation of the data.

The Data – Numbers

(1) HE 1.8.6-8 (AJ 17.168-170)

Words in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius: 130
Words also shared by the Latin Antiquities: 74
Percentage: 57%

Shared words that are proper nouns: 1
Percentage: 1%
Percentage of words shared after removing proper nouns: 57%

Longest strings of shared words in order: strings of 18, 14, 11, and 9 words in length.

Regards a character in the New Testament: Yes (Herod the Great)
Regards a character in the canonical Gospels: Yes
Regards a character in the Gospel of Matthew: Yes

(2) HE 1.5.4 (AJ 18.1)

Words in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius: 34
Words also shared by the Latin Antiquities: 10
Percentage: 29%

Shared words that are proper nouns: 3
Percentage: 33%
Percentage of words shared after removing proper nouns: 23%

Longest string of shared words in order: 2 words in length.

Regards a character in the New Testament: Yes (Cyrenius)
Regards a character in the canonical Gospels: Yes
Regards a character in the Gospel of Matthew: No

(3) HE 1.5.5 (AJ 18.4)

Words in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius: 33
Words also shared by the Latin Antiquities: 10
Percentage: 30%

Shared words that are proper nouns: 5
Percentage: 50%
Percentage of words shared after removing proper nouns: 18%

Longest string of shared words in order: 3 words in length.

Regards a character in the New Testament: Yes (Judas the Galilean)
Regards a character in the canonical Gospels: No
Regards a character in the Gospel of Matthew: No

(4) HE 1.10.5 (AJ 18.34-35)

Words in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius: 56
Words also shared by the Latin Antiquities: 48
Percentage: 86%

Shared words that are proper nouns: 10
Percentage: 21%
Percentage of words shared after removing proper nouns: 83%

Longest string of shared words in order: strings of 13, 12, and 12 words in length.

Regards a character in the New Testament: Yes (Caiaphas)
Regards a character in the canonical Gospels: Yes
Regards a character in the Gospel of Matthew: Yes

(5) HE 1.11.4-6 (AJ 18.116-119)

Words in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius: 154
Words also shared by the Latin Antiquities: 142
Percentage: 92%

Shared words that are proper nouns: 10
Percentage: 7%
Percentage of words shared after removing proper nouns: 92%

Longest strings of shared words in order: strings of 53, 22, 11, 11, 11, 9, and 9 words in length.

Regards a character in the New Testament: Yes (John the Baptist)
Regards a character in the canonical Gospels: Yes
Regards a character in the Gospel of Matthew: Yes

(6) HE 1.11.7-8 (AJ 18.63-64)

Words in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius: 100
Words also shared by the Latin Antiquities: 100
Percentage: 100%

Shared words that are proper nouns: 5
Percentage: 5%
Percentage of words shared after removing proper nouns: 100%

Longest string of shared words in order: 100 words in length.

Regards a character in the New Testament: Yes (Jesus Christ)
Regards a character in the canonical Gospels: Yes
Regards a character in the Gospel of Matthew: Yes

(7) HE 2.5.3-5 (AJ 18.257-260)

Words in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius: 168
Words also shared by the Latin Antiquities: 27
Percentage: 16%

Shared words that are proper nouns: 5
Percentage: 44%
Percentage of words shared after removing proper nouns: 13%

Longest string of shared words in order: 4 words in length.

Regards a character in the New Testament: No (Philo of Alexandria)
Regards a character in the canonical Gospels: No
Regards a character in the Gospel of Matthew: No

(8) HE 2.10.3-9 (AJ 19.343-351)

Words in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius: 353
Words also shared by the Latin Antiquities: 48
Percentage: 14%

Shared words that are proper nouns: 9
Percentage: 19%
Percentage of words shared after removing proper nouns: 11%

Longest string of shared words in order: 3 words in length.

Regards a character in the New Testament: Yes (Herod Agrippa)
Regards a character in the canonical Gospels: No
Regards a character in the Gospel of Matthew: No

(9) HE 2.11.2-3 (AJ 20.97-98)

Words in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius: 81
Words also shared by the Latin Antiquities: 19
Percentage: 23%

Shared words that are proper nouns: 6
Percentage: 32%
Percentage of words shared after removing proper nouns: 17%

Longest string of shared words in order: 3 words in length.

Regards a character in the New Testament: Yes (Theudas)
Regards a character in the canonical Gospels: No
Regards a character in the Gospel of Matthew: No

(10) HE 2.12.1 (AJ 20.101)

Words in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius: 24
Words also shared by the Latin Antiquities: 10
Percentage: 42%

Shared words that are proper nouns: 2
Percentage: 20%
Percentage of words shared after removing proper nouns: 36%

Longest string of shared words in order: 2 words in length.

Regards a character in the New Testament: No (Helena)
Regards a character in the canonical Gospels: No
Regards a character in the Gospel of Matthew: No

(11) HE 2.20.2-3 (AJ 20.180-181)

Words in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius: 93
Words also shared by the Latin Antiquities: 6
Percentage: 6%

Shared words that are proper nouns: 1
Percentage: 17%
Percentage of words shared after removing proper nouns: 5%

Longest string of shared words in order: 1 word in length.

Regards a character in the New Testament: No (none)
Regards a character in the canonical Gospels: No
Regards a character in the Gospel of Matthew: No

(12) HE 2.23.21-24 (AJ 20.199-203)

Words in Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius: 175
Words also shared by the Latin Antiquities: 43
Percentage: 25%

Shared words that are proper nouns: 13
Percentage: 30%
Percentage of words shared after removing proper nouns: 19%

Longest string of shared words in order: 5 words in length.

Regards a character in the New Testament: No (Ananus the younger)
Regards a character in the canonical Gospels: No
Regards a character in the Gospel of Matthew: No

The Data – Texts

Be mindful of the transcription errors.

(1) HE 1.8.6-8 (AJ 17.168-170)

Herodem porro amarior in dies morbus urgebat, supplicia commissi dudum sceleris expetens. lento namque igni extrinsecus in superficie corporis urebatur, intrinsicus vero vastum condebatur incendium. aviditas inexplebilis semper inerat cibi, nec tamen satieare umquam rabidis incitata faucibus valebat ingluvies intestina intrinsecus ulceribus obsaepta, doloribus quoque coli quam maximis cruciabatur. umor liquidus et luridus erga pedes tumidos oberrabat, et ab inferioribus partibus pube tenus tumore distentus, sed et verenda ipsa putredine corrupta scatere vermibus, spiritus quoque incredibilis inflatio et tentigo obscaena satis et execranda. his autem omnibus doloribus fetor dirior vel ex membrorum putredine vel ex respiratione anhelitus reddebatur. ita ex omni parte cruciatibus fesso nullae sufficere vires ad tolerantiam poterant. dicebant ergo hi, quibus divinandi peritia est, has divinitus poenas ab imperatore ob multa eius impie et crudeliter gesta deposci.
(Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius, Mommsen’s edition, p. 65, p. 67)

Herode porro amarior in dies morbus urgebat, supplicia deo comissi sceleris expetente. Ignis quippe lentus inerat: no tame coflagratione insupersiciem corporis agentem prodes quantu extrisecus cresces operebat icendiu. Auditas quoque i explebilis semp ierat cibi: nec tame sacietas unq rabidis incitata faucibus ualebat implere ingluuiem. Inteftina interius ulceribus ta dida putrescebant doloribus quoque coli seuissimus cruciabatur: humor liquidus ac luridus erga pedes tumidos oberrabat. Similis illi quoque & circa pube erat afflicto: fed & uereda ipa putredine corrupta scatebat uermibus spiritus quoque incredibilis eracta tetigo que fuerat fatis obscena diritate fetoris; & anhelitus respiratione creberrima; contractus quoque per cuncta mebra subsistens; uire noxiam operabatur: quae omnem tolerantiae cotulerat firmitatem. Dicebatur igitur ab his: quibus inerat divinandi peritia: diuinitus has poenas ob impietate eius & multa creduliter gesta deposci.
(1486 Venice edition of the Latin Ant. 17.168-170, p. 305p. 306)

ms-17-168(Codex Bambergensis, Latin Ant. 18.34-35, 210v)

“But the disease of Herod grew more severe, God inflicting punishment for his crimes. For a slow fire burned in him which was not so apparent to those who touched him, but augmented his internal distress; for he had a terrible desire for food which it was not possible to resist. He was affected also with ulceration of the intestines, and with especially severe pains in the colon, while a watery and transparent humor settled about his feet. He suffered also from a similar trouble in his abdomen. Nay more, his privy member was putrefied and produced worms. He found also excessive difficulty in breathing, and it was particularly disagreeable because of the offensiveness of the odor and the rapidity of respiration. He had convulsions also in every limb, which gave him uncontrollable strength. It was said, indeed, by those who possessed the power of divination and wisdom to explain such events, that God had inflicted this punishment upon the King on account of his great impiety.”
(H.E. 1.8.6-8 from Arthur McGiffert’s translation of Eusebius’ Church History, from the Greek, in Schaff’s NPNF Series)

“But now Herod’s distemper greatly increased upon him after a severe manner, and this by God’s judgment upon him for his sins; for a fire glowed in him slowly, which did not so much appear to the touch outwardly, as it augmented his pains inwardly; for it brought upon him a vehement appetite to eating, which he could not avoid to supply with one sort of food or other. His entrails were also ex-ulcerated, and the chief violence of his pain lay on his colon; an aqueous and transparent liquor also had settled itself about his feet, and a like matter afflicted him at the bottom of his belly. Nay, further, his privy-member was putrefied, and produced worms; and when he sat upright, he had a difficulty of breathing, which was very loathsome, on account of the stench of his breath, and the quickness of its returns; he had also convulsions in all parts of his body, which increased his strength to an insufferable degree. It was said by those who pretended to divine, and who were endued with wisdom to foretell such things, that God inflicted this punishment on the king on account of his great impiety…”
(Ant. 17.168-170 from William Whiston’s translation of Josephus’ Antiquities, from the Greek)

(2) HE 1.5.4 (AJ 18.1)

Cyrinus autem vir unus ex consessu curiae Romanae per singulos magistratus usque ad gradum consulatus ascendens, cetera quoque honorabilis, cum paucis Syriam venit, a Caesare ius dare gentibus missus et censor simul patrimoniorum futurus.
(Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius, Mommsen’s edition, p. 47)

Cirinus aut unus de his qui semper in consultatione congregabantur: uir per oium magisterior & principatuu officia celebratus per cunctas administrationes consulatus culmen alcendes: & in cuctis administrationibus: & aliis dignitatibus clarus: cu paucis uenit ad Syriam censor gentis a Caesare destinatus: & appreciator uniuscuius que substantiae.
(1486 Venice edition of the Latin Ant. 17.168-170, p. 317)

“Cyrenius, a member of the senate, one who had held other offices and had passed through them all to the consulship, a man also of great dignity in other respects, came to Syria with a small retinue, being sent by Cæsar to be a judge of the nation and to make an assessment of their property.”
(H.E. 1.5.4 from Arthur McGiffert’s translation of Eusebius’ Church History, from the Greek, in Schaff’s NPNF Series)

“NOW Cyrenius, a Roman senator, and one who had gone through other magistracies, and had passed through them till he had been consul, and one who, on other accounts, was of great dignity, came at this time into Syria, with a few others, being sent by Caesar to he a judge of that nation, and to take an account of their substance.”
(Ant. 18.1 from William Whiston’s translation of Josephus’ Antiquities, from the Greek)

(3) HE 1.5.5 (AJ 18.4)

Iudas vero Gaulanites, vir de civitate Gamala, Sadducum quendam Pharisaeum adsumens magnopere nitebatur sollicitare plebem, adserens eis, quod adscriptio census nihil aliud quam apertissimam inponeret servitutem, simulque cohortabatur gentem suam, ne perderet libertatem.
(Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius, Mommsen’s edition, p. 47)

Sed Iudas Gaulonites; homo ex citate; cui nome erat Gamalas; Saddocu Phariseu libi coiun gens: recessione facere festinabat: na depdatione & cenfu nihil aliud ee dicebat que integra seruitute. Proinde ad desendenda sua libertate: tota plebe diuersis exhortationibus incitabant: oem quoque illis cooperatura esse creatura: si pro bono libertatis honore sua & gloria magnanimitate tueretur: sed etiam deum non aliter illis auxiliatorem sore: nisi talibus confiliis ad agendum procederent.
(1486 Venice edition of the Latin Ant. 18.4, p. 317)

“But Judas, a Gaulonite, from a city called Gamala, taking with him Sadduchus, a Pharisee, urged the people to revolt, both of them saying that the taxation meant nothing else than downright slavery, and exhorting the nation to defend their liberty.”
(H.E. 1.5.5 from Arthur McGiffert’s translation of Eusebius’ Church History, from the Greek, in Schaff’s NPNF Series)

“Yet was there one Judas, a Gaulonite, of a city whose name was Gamala, who, taking with him Sadduc, a Pharisee, became zealous to draw them to a revolt, who both said that this taxation was no better than an introduction to slavery, and exhorted the nation to assert their liberty…”
(Ant. 18.4 from William Whiston’s translation of Josephus’ Antiquities, from the Greek)

(4) HE 1.10.5 (AJ 18.34-35)

Valerius Gratus Anna sacerdotio deturbato Ismahelem pontificem designavit filium Baffi. sed et hunc non multo post abiciens Eleazarum Annaniae pontificis filium pontificatui subrogavit. post annum vero etiam hunc arcet officio et Symoni cuidam Canifi filio pontificatus tradidit ministerium, quo non amplius et ipse quam unius anni spatio perfunctus Ioseppum, cui et Caifas nomen fuit, accepit sucessorem.
(Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius, Mommsen’s edition, p. 75)

Huic succeddit in principatu Tyberius uero uxoris eius Iuliae filius qui fuit romais iii. imperator: sub quo quitus Iudeor rector Ualerius Gratus efficitur: Annii rusi successor. Is ananum remouens sacerdotio: hismahelium filium iabi pontificem designauit. Sed & hunc no multo post abiiciens: & Eleazarum Anne pontificis filium sacerdotio surrogauit. Poft annum uero etiam hunc arcet officio: & Symoni cuidam camithi filio ministerium potificatus attribuit. Sed non amplius & ipse quam unius anni spacio eodem perfunctus officio: Ioseppum cui Caiphas nomen fuit: habuit ordine successorem.
(1486 Venice edition of the Latin Ant. 18.34-35, p. 319)

ms-18-34(Codex Bambergensis, Latin Ant. 18.34-35, 220v)

“Valerius Gratus having put an end to the priesthood of Ananus appoints Ishmael, the son of Fabi, high priest. And having removed him after a little he appoints Eleazer, the son of Ananus the high priest, to the same office. And having removed him also at the end of a year he gives the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus. But he likewise held the honor no more than a year, when Josephus, called also Caiaphas, succeeded him.”
(H.E. 1.10.4 from Arthur McGiffert’s translation of Eusebius’ Church History, from the Greek, in Schaff’s NPNF Series)

“… upon [Caesar’s] death Tiberius Nero, his wife Julia’s son, succeeded. He was now the third emperor; and he sent Valerius Gratus to be procurator of Judea, and to succeed Annius Rufus. This man deprived Ananus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Ananus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; and when he had possessed that dignity no longer than a year, Joseph Caiaphas was made his successor. When Gratus had done those things, he went back to Rome, after he had tarried in Judea eleven years, when Pontius Pilate came as his successor.”
(Ant. 18.34-35 from William Whiston’s translation of Josephus’ Antiquities, from the Greek)

(5) HE 1.11.4-6 (AJ 18.116-119)

Quibusdam autem [inquit] Iudaeorum uidebatur ideo perisse Herodis exercitum, quod in eum satis iuste ultio diuina commota sit pro uindicta Iohannis, qui uocabatur baptista, quem puniuit Herodes uirum ualde bonum, qui praecipiebat Iudaeis uirtuti operam dare, iustitiam inter se inuicem custodire et in deum seruare pietatem, per baptismum in unum coire. Hoc enim pacto baptismum acceptabile fore, si non solum ad abluenda peccata sumatur, uerum et ad castimoniam corporis atque ad animae iustitiam purificationemque seruetur omniumque pariter uirtutum uelut signaculum et custodia quaedam fidelis habeatur. Quae cum ab eo per praecepta huiuscemodi docerentur atque ad audiendum eum perplurima multitudo concurreret, ueritus Herodes, ne forte doctrinae eius persuasione populi a suo regno desciscerent, uidebat enim, quod praeceptis eius ac monitis oboedire in omnibus plebs esset parata, melius credidit, priusquam noui aliquid fieret, anticipare hominem nece, quam postmodum turbatis rebus seram paenitudinem gerere. Ex sola igitur suspicione Herodis uinctus in castellum Macherunta abducitur Iohannes ibique obtruncatur.
(Rufinus’ translation of HE 1.11.4-6, Levenson-Martin, “The Latin Translations of Josephus,” pp. 35-36)

A quibusdam autem Iudaeorum uidebatur ideo perisse Herodis exercitum, quod in eum satis iuste indignatio diuina commota sit pro uindicta Iohannis, qui uocabatur baptista. Hunc enim Herodes occidit uirum ualde bonum, qui praecipiebat Iudaeis uirtuti operam dare, iustitiam colere, in deum seruare pietatem, et per baptismum in unum coire. Tum demum enim baptismum acceptabile fore, si non solum ad abluenda peccata sumatur, uerum etiam ad castimoniam corporis atque ad animae iustitiam purificationemque seruetur omniumque pariter uirtutum uelut signaculum et custodia quaedam fidelis habeatur. Quae cum ab eo praecepta huiusmodi docerentur atque ad audiendum eum perplurima multitudo concurreret, ueritus Herodes, ne forte doctrinae eius persuasione populi a suo regno discederent, uidebat enim, quod praeceptis eius ac monitis parata esset plebs in omnibus oboedire, melius credidit, priusquam noui aliquid fieret, praeuenire hominem nece, quam postmodum turbatis rebus seram paenitudinem gerere. Ex sola igitur suspicione Herodis uinctus in castellum Macherunta abducitur Iohannes ibique obtruncatur. Iudaeis autem sicut iam diximus uidebatur pro eius ultione interitum illi exercitui deum importasse quo Herodes sumpsisset digna supplicia.
(Latin AJ 18.63-64, Levenson-Martin, “The Latin Translations of Josephus,” pp. 35-36)

(6) HE 1.11.7-8 (AJ 18.63-64)

Fuit autem iisdem temporibus Iesus sapiens uir, si tamen uirum eum nominare fas est. Erat enim mirabilium operum effector doctorque hominum eorum, qui libenter quae uera sunt audiunt. Et multos quidem Iudaeorum, multos etiam ex gentilibus sibi adiunxit. Christus hic erat. Hunc accusatione
primorum nostrae gentis uirorum cum Pilatus in crucem agendum esse decreuisset, non deseruerunt hi qui ab initio eum dilexerant. Apparuit enim eis tertio die iterum uiuus, secundum quod diuinitus
inspirati prophetae uel haec uel alia de eo innumera miracula futura esse praedixerant. Sed et in hodiernum Christianorum, qui ab ipso nuncupati sunt, et nomen perseuerat et genus.
(Rufinus’ translation of HE 1.11.7-8, Levenson-Martin, “The Latin Translations of Josephus,” pp. 22-23)

Fuit autem eisdem temporibus Ihesus sapiens uir, si tamen uirum eum nominare fas est. Erat enim mirabilium operum effector et doctor hominum eorum qui libenter quae uera sunt audiunt. Et multos quidem Iudaeorum multos etiam ex gentibus sibi adiunxit. Christus hic erat. Hunc accusatione primorum nostrae gentis uirorum cum Pilatus in crucem agendum esse decreuisset, non deseruerunt hi qui ab initio eum dilexerant. Apparuit enim eis tertio die, iterum uiuus, secundum quod diuinitus inspirati prophetae, uel haec uel alia de eo innumera miracula futura esse praedixerant. Sed et in hodiernum Christianorum, qui ab ipso nuncupati sunt, et nomen perseuerat et genus.
(Latin AJ 18.63-64, Levenson-Martin, “The Latin Translations of Josephus,” pp. 22-23)

(7) HE 2.5.3-5 (AJ 18.257-260)

et quidem cum seditio apud Alexandriam fuisset exorta inter Iudaeos et Graecos, terni ab utrisque partibus legati mittuntur ad Gaium, in quibus pro parte Graecorum erat quidam legatus Appion nomine. qui cum in ceteris quam plurimis insimularet Iudaeos, tum maxime quod honorem Caesari non deferrent, ut moris est facere omnibus, qui Romanis fascibus subiacent. hic ergo, aiebat, neque aras Gaio neque templa constituunt neque alia huiusmodi, in quibus ei divini honores a provincialibus deferuntur, sed soli sunt, qui neque statuas ei decernant neque sacramentum nominis eius observent, cumque haec et alia graviora allegaret Appion, per quae concitari crederet Gajum, Filo, qui legationi praeerat Iudaeorum, vir in omnibus magnificus, Alexandri alabarchae frater, filosofiae non ignarus potentissime purgavit obiecta. sed abicit eum Gaius et iubet ilico e conspectu suo abscedere, dum iracundia repletus secum ipse rimatur quid in eos conferat mali. egressus autem Filo cum iniuria ait ad Iudaeos, qui sibi adstabant: bono animo nos esse oportet, quibus iratus est Gaius, quia necesse est adesse divinum, ubi humanum cesset auxilium.
(Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius, Mommsen’s edition, p. 117, p. 119)

ant18-257(1486 Venice edition of the Latin Ant. 18.257-260, p. 331)

“A sedition having arisen in Alexandria between the Jews that dwell there and the Greeks, three deputies were chosen from each faction and went to Caius. One of the Alexandrian deputies was Apion, who uttered many slanders against the Jews; among other things saying that they neglected the honors due to Cæsar. For while all other subjects of Rome erected altars and temples to Caius, and in all other respects treated him just as they did the gods, they alone considered it disgraceful to honor him with statues and to swear by his name. And when Apion had uttered many severe charges by which he hoped that Caius would be aroused, as indeed was likely, Philo, the chief of the Jewish embassy, a man celebrated in every respect, a brother of Alexander the Alabarch, and not unskilled in philosophy, was prepared to enter upon a defense in reply to his accusations. But Caius prevented him and ordered him to leave, and being very angry, it was plain that he meditated some severe measure against them. And Philo departed covered with insult and told the Jews that were with him to be of good courage; for while Caius was raging against them he was in fact already contending with God.”
(HE 2.5.2-5 from Arthur McGiffert’s translation of Eusebius’ Church History, from the Greek, in Schaff’s NPNF Series)

“THERE was now a tumult arisen at Alexandria, between the Jewish inhabitants and the Greeks; and three ambassadors were chosen out of each party that were at variance, who came to Caius. Now one of these ambassadors from the people of Alexandria was Apion, who uttered many blasphemies against the Jews; and, among other things that he said, he charged them with neglecting the honors that belonged to Caesar; for that while all who were subject to the Roman empire built altars and temples to Caius, and in other regards universally received him as they received the gods, these Jews alone thought it a dishonorable thing for them to erect statues in honor of him, as well as to swear by his name. Many of these severe things were said by Apion, by which he hoped to provoke Caius to anger at the Jews, as he was likely to be. But Philo, the principal of the Jewish embassage, a man eminent on all accounts, brother to Alexander the alabarch, and one not unskillful in philosophy, was ready to betake himself to make his defense against those accusations; but Caius prohibited him, and bid him begone; he was also in such a rage, that it openly appeared he was about to do them some very great mischief. So Philo being thus affronted, went out, and said to those Jews who were about him, that they should be of good courage, since Caius’s words indeed showed anger at them, but in reality had already set God against himself.”
(Ant. 18.257-260 from William Whiston’s translation of Josephus’ Antiquities, from the Greek)

(8) HE 2.10.3-9 (AJ 19.343-351)

Tertium annum imperii Iudaeae totius expleverat, cum forte Caesaream, quae prius Pyrgos Stratonis vocabatur, advenit. ubi cum in honorem Caesaris spectacula civibus ederet, votivo, ut videbatur, salutis Caesaris die, cumque illue totius provinciae viri honore et facultatibus praediti convenissent, secundo spectaculorum die indutus veste fulgenti ex auro argentoque mirabiliter contexta incipiente die procedit ad theatrum. ubi cum primos solis radios argentaea vestis gremio suscepisset, repercusso splendore duplicatam spectantibus lucem fulgor metalli vibrantis effudit, ut intuentibus perstringeret aciem terror aspectus et per hoc plus aliquid de eo, quam humanae naturae est, artifex adrogantia mentiretur, ilico adulantis vulgi concrepant voces honorem sonantes, sed exitium ferentes, et hinc atque hinc caveis conclamantibus deus compellatur, utque fieret propitius, suplliciter exoratur dicentibus populis, quod ‘nunc usque ut hominem te timuimus, sed ex hoc iam supra humanam te esse naturam fatemur’. sed rex adclamationem contra fas habitam non repressit nec impietatem inlicitae adulationis exhorruit, donec respiciens paulo post imminentem atque insistentem capiti suo videret angelum, eumque sensit continuo exitii sui ministrum, quem prius noverat provisorem bonorum. et ecce repente cruciatus eum ex dolore incredibili ventris atque inflatione corripuit respiciensque ad amicos: ‘en,’ inquit, ‘ille ego deus vester, ecce propellor confestim et deturbor ex vita, quoniam quidem divina virtus nuper conlatas in me falsas arguit voces, et qui modo inmortalis dicebar a vobis, praeceps iam iamque rapior in mortem. sed suscipienda est sententia, quam deus statuit. nam et viximus haud contemnendi et longaevitatem, quae beata putatur, explevimus’. et cum haec dixisset, vi doloris vehementius agitatus instanter ad palatium reportatur. cumque divulgatum esset eum propediem moriturum, ingens multitudo totius aetatis et sexus conveniens mere patrio supra cilicia strati omnipotenti deo pro regis incolumitate supplicabant, omnis autem domus regia planctibus et gemitibus personabat. cum interim rex ipse in excelso solario recubans et deorsum respiciens ac pronos prostratosque omnes cum fletibus pervidens ne ipse quidem temperabat a lacrimis. verum continuis quinque diebus ventris doloribus cruciatus vitam violenter abrupit, quinquagensimum aetatis et quartum agens annum, regni vero septimum. quattor etenim sub Gaio Caesare annis regnaverat, Filippi tetrarchiam tribus annis obtinens, quarto autem etiam Herodis sibi adiungens, tribus autem reliquis annis sub Claudio Caesare exactis.
(Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius, Mommsen’s edition, p. 127, p. 129, p. 131)

ant19-343(1486 Venice edition of the Latin Ant. 19.343-351, p. 352)

“He had completed the third year of his reign over all Judea when he came to Cæsarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower. There he held games in honor of Cæsar, learning that this was a festival observed in behalf of Cæsar’s safety. At this festival was collected a great multitude of the highest and most honorable men in the province. And on the second day of the games he proceeded to the theater at break of day, wearing a garment entirely of silver and of wonderful texture. And there the silver, illuminated by the reflection of the sun’s earliest rays, shone marvelously, gleaming so brightly as to produce a sort of fear and terror in those who gazed upon him. And immediately his flatterers, some from one place, others from another, raised up their voices in a way that was not for his good, calling him a god, and saying, ‘Be thou merciful; if up to this time we have feared thee as a man, henceforth we confess that thou art superior to the nature of mortals.’ The king did not rebuke them, nor did he reject their impious flattery. But after a little, looking up, he saw an angel sitting above his head. And this he quickly perceived would be the cause of evil as it had once been the cause of good fortune, and he was smitten with a heart-piercing pain. And straightway distress, beginning with the greatest violence, seized his bowels. And looking upon his friends he said, ‘I, your god, am now commanded to depart this life; and fate thus on the spot disproves the lying words you have just uttered concerning me. He who has been called immortal by you is now led away to die; but our destiny must be accepted as God has determined it. For we have passed our life by no means ingloriously, but in that splendor which is pronounced happiness.’ And when he had said this he labored with an increase of pain. He was accordingly carried in haste to the palace, while the report spread among all that the king would undoubtedly soon die. But the multitude, with their wives and children, sitting on sackcloth after the custom of their fathers, implored God in behalf of the king, and every place was filled with lamentation and tears. And the king as he lay in a lofty chamber, and saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, could not refrain from weeping himself. And after suffering continually for five days with pain in the bowels, he departed this life, in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign. Four years he ruled under the Emperor Caius—three of them over the tetrarchy of Philip, to which was added in the fourth year that of Herod—and three years during the reign of the Emperor Claudius.”
(H.E. 2.10.3-9 from Arthur McGiffert’s translation of Eusebius’ Church History, from the Greek, in Schaff’s NPNF Series)

“Now when Agrippa had reigned three years over all Judea, he came to the city Cesarea, which was formerly called Strato’s Tower; and there he exhibited shows in honor of Caesar, upon his being informed that there was a certain festival celebrated to make vows for his safety. At which festival a great multitude was gotten together of the principal persons, and such as were of dignity through his province. On the second day of which shows he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful, and came into the theater early in the morning; at which time the silver of his garment being illuminated by the fresh reflection of the sun’s rays upon it, shone out after a surprising manner, and was so resplendent as to spread a horror over those that looked intently upon him; and presently his flatterers cried out, one from one place, and another from another, (though not for his good,) that he was a god; and they added, “Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.” Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery. But as he presently afterward looked up, he saw an owl 2 sitting on a certain rope over his head, and immediately understood that this bird was the messenger of ill tidings, as it had once been the messenger of good tidings to him; and fell into the deepest sorrow. A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, “I, whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life; while Providence thus reproves the lying words you just now said to me; and I, who was by you called immortal, am immediately to be hurried away by death. But I am bound to accept of what Providence allots, as it pleases God; for we have by no means lived ill, but in a splendid and happy manner.” When he said this, his pain was become violent. Accordingly he was carried into the palace, and the rumor went abroad every where, that he would certainly die in a little time. But the multitude presently sat in sackcloth, with their wives and children, after the law of their country, and besought God for the king’s recovery. All places were also full of mourning and lamentation. Now the king rested in a high chamber, and as he saw them below lying prostrate on the ground, he could not himself forbear weeping. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life, being in the fifty-fourth year of his age, and in the seventh year of his reign; for he reigned four years under Caius Caesar, three of them were over Philip’s tetrarchy only, and on the fourth he had that of Herod added to it; and he reigned, besides those, three years under the reign of Claudius Caesar…”
(Ant. 19.343-351 from William Whiston’s translation of Josephus’ Antiquities, from the Greek)

(9) HE 2.11.2-3 (AJ 20.97-98)

Fado, Iudaeam procurante deceptor quidam magus Theudas nomine persuadet populi multitudinem sublatis propriis facultatibus urbes excedere et ripas Iordanis fluminis obsidere. dicebat autem se etiam prophetam esse et posse verbi sui praecepto fluvii fluenta dirimere et facilem sectatoribus suis fluminis transitum dare. quae cum diceret, multos decepit. Fadus vero non in longum vocordiae eius indulsit, sed emittit equitum turmam, quae ex improviso inruens super eos quam plurimos quidem peremit, multos tamen et vivos ceptit, ipsius autem Theudae caput desectum Hierosolyma deportavit.
(Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius, Mommsen’s edition, p. 131, p. 133)

ant20-97(1486 Venice edition of the Latin Ant. 20.97-98, p. 358)

“While Fadus was procurator of Judea a certain impostor called Theudas persuaded a very great multitude to take their possessions and follow him to the river Jordan. For he said that he was a prophet, and that the river should be divided at his command, and afford them an easy passage. And with these words he deceived many. But Fadus did not permit them to enjoy their folly, but sent a troop of horsemen against them, who fell upon them unexpectedly and slew many of them and took many others alive, while they took Theudas himself captive, and cut off his head and carried it to Jerusalem.”
(HE 2.11.2-3 from Arthur McGiffert’s translation of Eusebius’ Church History, from the Greek, in Schaff’s NPNF Series)

“NOW it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit them to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.”
(Ant. 20.97-98 from William Whiston’s translation of Josephus’ Antiquities, from the Greek)

(10) HE 2.12.1 (AJ 20.101)

Per idem tempus fames magna obsederat etiam Iudaeam qua tempestate regina nomine Helena multis pecuniis comparatum frumentum de Aegypto et Hierosolyma delatum indigentibus ministrabat.
(Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius, Mommsen’s edition, p. 133)

Horum ergo temporibus contigit illa maxima fames: quam etia Helena regina multis pecuniis frumenta comparans ex Egypto: indigentibus ficut praediximus est partita.
(1486 Venice edition of the Latin Ant. 20.97-98, p. 358)

And at this time it came to pass that the great famine took place in Judea, in which the queen Helen, having purchased grain from Egypt with large sums, distributed it to the needy.”
(H.E. 12.1 from Arthur McGiffert’s translation of Eusebius’ Church History, from the Greek, in Schaff’s NPNF Series)

“Under these procurators that great famine happened in Judea, in which queen Helena bought corn in Egypt at a great expense, and distributed it to those that were in want, as I have related already.”
(Ant. 20.101 from William Whiston’s translation of Josephus’ Antiquities, from the Greek)

(11) HE 2.20.2-3 (AJ 20.180-181)

Inflammatur autem et seditio acerbissima a pontificibus adversum sacerdotes et primos plebis Hierusolymorum, quorum singuli conquirentes sibimet perditorum iuvenum et novis rebus gaudentium manum duces semetipsos propriae factionis instituebant. qui confligentes ad invicem primo conviciis lacessire, tum deinde et saxis invicem sternere, nec quisquam erat, qui coerceret, sed agebantur omnia tamquam in urbe non habente recotrem. igitur pontifices in tantam venere proterviam, ut servis suis ad areas missis invaderent decimas, quae sacerdotibus debebantur. et accidebat, ut nonnulli ex minoribus sacerdotibus, quorum alimoniae vi fuerant direptae inedia deperirent, ita seditionum violentia ius fasque confuderat.
(Rufinus’ translation of Eusebius, Mommsen’s edition, p. 159)

ant20-180(1486 Venice edition of the Latin Ant. 20.180-181, p. 361)

“There arose a quarrel between the high priests on the one hand and the priests and leaders of the people of Jerusalem on the other. And each of them collected a body of the boldest and most restless men, and put himself at their head, and whenever they met they hurled invectives and stones at each other. And there was no one that would interpose; but these things were done at will as if in a city destitute of a ruler. And so great was the shamelessness and audacity of the high priests that they dared to send their servants to the threshing-floors to seize the tithes due to the priests; and thus those of the priests that were poor were seen to be perishing of want. In this way did the violence of the factions prevail over all justice.”
(H.E. 2.20.2-3 from Arthur McGiffert’s translation of Eusebius’ Church History, from the Greek, in Schaff’s NPNF Series)

“And now arose a sedition between the high priests and the principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem; each of which got them a company of the boldest sort of men, and of those that loved innovations about them, and became leaders to them; and when they struggled together, they did it by casting reproachful words against one another, and by throwing stones also. And there was nobody to reprove them; but these disorders were done after a licentious manner in the city, as if it had no government over it. And such was the impudence 6 and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want. To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice.”
(Ant. 20.180-181 from William Whiston’s translation of Josephus’ Antiquities, from the Greek)

(12) HE 2.23.21-24 (AJ 20.199-203)

Mittit autem Caesar Albinum Iudaeae praefectum Festi morte conperta. Ananias autem iunior, quem pontificatum suscepisse supra diximus, protervus admodum et insolens moribus haeresim defendebat Sadducaeorum, qui in iudiciis crudeliores ceteris Iudaeis videntur, sicut iam supra ostendimus. Hic insolentiae suae tempus datum credens ex morte Festi consessum iudicum convocat et introducit in medium fratrem Iesu, qui dicitur Christus, Iacobum nomine, et alios quam plurimos, quos velut contra legem gerere incusans tradidit lapidandos. Quod facinus si qui ex civibus modestior fuit et aequi ac legis observantior, gravissime tulit. Qui etiam occulte legationem ad Caesarem mittunt, orantes eum scribere Ananiae, ne haec agat, quia nec prius huiuscemodi facinora recte commiserit. Quidam autem ex ipsis etiam Albino occurrunt de Alexandria ad ipsos iter agenti atque edocent, quod non licuerit Ananiae se inconsulto consessum iudicum convocare. At ille commotus ex his, quae dicta sunt, cum indignatione scribit ad Ananiam comminatus ablaturum se ab eo iudicandi potestatem, qua non recte utebatur, quia et Agrippa rex eum tribus solis mensibus functum hoc honore privaverit et Iesum Dammaei filium in locum eius subrogaverit.
(H.E. 2.23.21-24, Levenson-Martin, “The Latin Translations of Josephus,” p. 79)

Ananus autem iunior cum pontificatum suscepisset, erat uehementer asperrimus et audax secta Saduceus qui circa iudicia sunt ultra omnes Iudaeos ualde crudeles, sicuti iam declarauimus. Cum ergo huius sectae Ananus esset, credens se inuenisse tempus oportunum, Festo mortuo, et Albino in itinere constituto, concilium fecit iudicum, et quosdam deducens ad semetipsum inter quos et fratrem Ihesu, qui dicitur Christus, nomine Iacobum, quasi contra legem agentes accusans, tradidit lapidandos. Qui autem uidebantur esse moderatissimi ciuitatis, et circa legis integritatem habere sollicitudinem, grauiter hoc tulere; miseruntque latenter ad regem rogantes eum, ut scriberet Anano, ne talia perpetraret, cum neque prius recte fecisset. Quidam uero eorum etiam Albino occurrerunt, ab Alexandria uenienti, eumque docuerunt, quia non licet Anano praeter illius uoluntatem congregare concilium. Albinus autem eorum sermonibus flexus, cum iracundia scripsit Anano, interminatus eum poenas exsoluere. Quapropter et rex Agrippas, sublato ei pontificatu, quod tribus habuerat mensibus, Iesum Damnei filium in eius loco constituit.
(Ant. 20.199-203, Levenson-Martin, “The Latin Translations of Josephus,” pp. 43-46)

“But the emperor, when he learned of the death of Festus, sent Albinus to be procurator of Judea. But the younger Ananus, who, as we have already said, had obtained the high priesthood, was of an exceedingly bold and reckless disposition. He belonged, moreover, to the sect of the Sadducees, who are the most cruel of all the Jews in the execution of judgment, as we have already shown. Ananus, therefore, being of this character, and supposing that he had a favorable opportunity on account of the fact that Festus was dead, and Albinus was still on the way, called together the Sanhedrim, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, the so-called Christ, James by name, together with some others, and accused them of violating the law, and condemned them to be stoned. But those in the city who seemed most moderate and skilled in the law were very angry at this, and sent secretly to the king, requesting him to order Ananus to cease such proceedings. For he had not done right even this first time. And certain of them also went to meet Albinus, who was journeying from Alexandria, and reminded him that it was not lawful for Ananus to summon the Sanhedrim without his knowledge. And Albinus, being persuaded by their representations, wrote in anger to Ananus, threatening him with punishment. And the king, Agrippa, in consequence, deprived him of the high priesthood, which he had held three months, and appointed Jesus, the son of Damnæus.”
(H.E. 2.23.21-24 from Arthur McGiffert’s translation of Eusebius’ Church History, from the Greek, in Schaff’s NPNF Series)

AND now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Ananus, who was also himself called Ananus. Now the report goes that this eldest Ananus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. But this younger Ananus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; when, therefore, Ananus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Ananus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Ananus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Ananus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest.
(Ant. 20.199-203 from William Whiston’s translation of Josephus’ Antiquities, from the Greek)

Comments

comments

  One Response to “Eusebius, Rufinus, and the Latin Antiquities”

  1. […] (including quotation by way of Eusebius, who himself quotes the Jewish historian). In a post on Eusebius, Rufinus, and the Latin Antiquities, we saw (in agreement with Whealey and Levenson-Martin) that the Latin translation of the […]

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

(required)

(required)