1 Introduction1
Sefer Yosippon stands among the most widespread medieval Hebrew works. This description of the history of the Second Temple and its destruction by the Romans provided the background for the medieval notion of exile and the self-understanding of the Jewish diaspora communities in Europe and the Middle East. It was transmitted in more than 60 manuscripts in three different recensions copied in Central Europe, the Mediterranean region, and in the Near East. Along with its wide dispersion and many copies, the book was subject to changes and alterations made sometimes by mistake and sometimes intentionally. Steven Bowman was the first to label it an “open book,”2 similar to many works copied and altered by Jewish scribes and scholars during the Middle Ages.3 These alterations started to become more substantial when the text was not only changed in wording and phrasing but enlarged by whole passages or even chapters, called ‘interpolations.’ The most famous interpolations are parts of the Alexander Romance in the chapter on Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem (SY 10) and based on the Hebrew translations of the Greek and Latin Alexander tradition, and a Jewish version of the Testimonium Flavianum in the chapter on Philo’s embassy to Rome (SY 58). In contrast to other Medieval Hebrew compilations, however, the text never completely lost its literary structure due to its historiographical nature.4 Its narrative framework, based on the chronology of events, beginning with the table of nations and ending with the destruction of the Second Temple in Jerusalem, was not altered, but rather expanded, by phrases, interpolations within the text, and additional passages at the end.5
The standard Hebrew text of Sefer Yosippon was published in 1980/1981 by David Flusser, including a long discussion of the text’s nature, transmission, and reception in a second volume.6 Flusser reconstructed the manuscript tradition and divided the manuscripts into three larger groups: Recensions A, B and C. He based his edition on a group of manuscripts of Recension A, especially on one of them, MS Jerusalem oct. 4120, written in Italy in 1282.7 According to Flusser, the manuscripts of Recension A provide the earliest version of the text, Recension B mainly includes the interpolation on Alexander,8 while Recension C represents a text that is thoroughly revised and rewritten, resulting in a much longer version, first printed in Constantinople in 1510 and again in Venice in 1544. Until Flusser’s critical text in the 1980s, this long version had been the textus receptus of Yosippon among scholars.9
Despite the fact that David Flusser’s edition of Sefer Yosippon is a major achievement, it has become clear that the text he published does not represent any of the manuscripts.10 It also does not provide the oldest version of the text. In fact, the early manuscripts of Yosippon, at least in certain passages, look different. Most striking is Flusser’s decision to integrate the end of Chapter 3 and Chapters 4–6 into his text, containing the stories of Daniel in the lion’s den, Daniel and Bel, and Zerubavel at the Babylonian court, sub-narratives not present in the Recension A manuscript group upon which Flusser based his edition. Yet Flusser integrated them into his published text.11 Furthermore, he did not account sufficiently for the Genizah fragments of Yosippon, more of which have been discovered during the past decades. However, their role in the transmission is crucial for the reconstruction of the history of the text.12 During my examination of the transmission and reception history of the book, I reviewed all extant manuscripts and was able to discover additional textual witnesses that were unknown to Flusser. This led me to the hypothesis that Yosippon’s oldest text was contained in the Cairo Genizah fragments, while the complete manuscripts represented later editorial stages.
In this article I will provide a discussion of the Hebrew manuscripts of Sefer Yosippon together with a reconsideration of their relation to and relevance for the textual history of the book, based on the findings presented in my first book and on more recent discoveries in the past several years.13 My research has shown that a stemma of Yosippon’s manuscripts cannot be established without uncertainties.14 The variants suggest that the transmission history has to be seen as a fluid one.15 Nevertheless, I maintain the division into three recensions, although some of the manuscript witnesses display features for which they should be assigned to more than one recension. Those I define as manuscripts standing in between two recensions, i.e. they illustrate the transition. My analysis is based on considerations of textual development in light of inspection made of each and every manuscript. It allows me to present a modified schema of the classification of Yosippon manuscripts based on the fact that not every manuscript meets the criteria of only one single group. Below I present the manuscripts in turn and discuss their features, after which a complete list of the manuscripts of Yosippon examined here is provided in an appendix. Incomplete manuscripts, fragments, and excerpts are only included in the discussion of Recensions A and B, because here these fragments contribute substantially to the textual history. The other incomplete manuscripts will be surveyed in a different context.
2 New Findings concerning the Manuscript Tradition of Sefer Yosippon
The following reconstruction of the textual witnesses and their classification is based to a large extent on the interpolations in Sefer Yosippon.16 Flusser’s establishment of three major recensions is kept. However, recent manuscript findings, in particular the fragments of the Cairo Genizah and the old and new witnesses for Recension B, allow us to draw a modified and more refined picture of the classification of Yosippon’s manuscripts.
The manuscript witnesses for Recension A are organized into three subgroups. The first group contains the Genizah fragments originating from Southern Italy and the Near East, which were produced in the 11th and 12th centuries. Their textual version is the one that found its way into Recension B and C. The second group represents a different editorial stage of the text, characterized by certain features like attribution to Gershom Meʾor ha-Golah and a different, longer ending.17 It is called the “Ashkenazic” Recension A, since it circulated in Ashkenaz and Italy and deviates from the Cairo Genizah text. The third group encompasses later manuscript copies that continue the textual tradition of the Cairo Genizah fragments while at the same time adding elements of Recension B (transitional stage).
In contrast to what Flusser’s text would have us believe, all of the witnesses of Recension A do not contain SY 3–6 on Daniel and Zerubavel. These are added only in the transitional stage to Recension B. Furthermore, while Flusser thought that the first of the two interpolations to Yosippon’s chapter on Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem was appended only in manuscripts of Recension B, a newly discovered witness of the Cairo Genizah fragments proves otherwise.
Also due to new manuscripts findings, Recension B is now represented by more than one manuscript.18 The textual variances within these manuscripts show that Recension B can be subdivided into groups as well, one conveying a shortened version (also in the early printed edition of Mantua 1475), while the other continues the text of Recension A/Cairo Genizah. All witnesses of Recension B include Chapters 3–6 on Daniel and Zerubavel and the first Interpolation on Alexander.
Regarding Recension C: this version of Sefer Yosippon was produced by Judah Mosqoni, who expanded the wording of the text and added several passages, including parts of Abraham ibn Daud’s Divre Malkhe Yisrael (History of the Kings of Israel), which itself is a reworking of Yosippon (see discussion of Recension B and C). Mosqoni’s text was printed in the 16th century and was seen as “the” Yosippon until the publication of Flusser’s text (based on Ashkenazic Recension A) in 1980/1981. Ever since, Flusser’s text has served as the basis of research on Yosippon. Yet, the true story of the manuscripts and their features has yet to be told.
3 Manuscripts of Recension A
A review of the manuscripts of Sefer Yosippon which constitute Recension A can be seen to establish three subgroups. The first group encompasses the fragments of the Cairo Genizah, which will be discussed in section 3.1. The second group consists of the three manuscripts that share several textual features and deviate from the other versions. Flusser based his edition mainly on this group, in particular on MS Jerusalem oct. 4120 (dated to 1282 and written in Italy, the eldest textual witness apart from the Cairo Genizah fragments), which he also published separately as a facsimile.19 The other two manuscripts belonging to this group are New York JTS 3572 and the famous illuminated Italian Rothschild Miscellany (Israel Museum B61.09.0803—formerly Israel Museum 180/51).20 Since these manuscripts share a number of features that do not appear in the Cairo Genizah fragments and were probably added when the text of Yosippon was copied and reshaped in Ashkenaz/Italy, this group is called the “Ashkenazic” group of manuscripts of Recension A and will be discussed in Section 3.2.21
Two more manuscripts belong to Recension A: Vatican Urb. 52 and Oxford Heb. d. 11. Vatican Urb. 52 presents a difficult case. In some parts of the manuscript, the wording and phrases seem to be closer to the text presented in the Cairo Genizah fragments. On the other hand, the text was later corrected and reworked from a Vorlage close to Recension B. Therefore, Vatican Urb. 52 is a witness for the early stage of Recension A, while on the other hand it shows parallels in phrasing to Recension B.
Oxford Heb. d. 11 is an example for the transition between Recension A and B. The text of Yosippon presented in this manuscript is part of a compilation of texts with a historiographic outlook. Some of these texts were compiled by Yeraḥme’el ben Solomon in Italy in the 12th century.22 In the 14th century, this collection was again integrated into a larger compilation of texts by Eleazar ben Asher ha-Levi in Ashkenaz, who called his work Sefer ha-Zikhronot (Book of Memories).23 In contrast to the other textual witnesses of Recension A, the Yosippon text of Oxford Heb. d. 11 encompasses SY 3–6 in Flusser’s edition, which provide additional stories on Daniel at the Persian court. Therefore, these chapters were only added to Recension A at the point of transition to Recension B. The text of Yosippon in this manuscript also shares other features with textual witnesses of Recension B. Thus, Oxford Heb. d. 11, similar to Vatican Urb. 52, shows features parallel to the Genizah fragments on the one hand, and elements in common with the version in Recension B (and sometimes C as well) on the other.
This suggests that it was the text of the Cairo Genizah fragments as well as the text in Vatican Urb. 52 and Oxford Heb. d. 11 that became the “textus receptus” in the later versions, while the text of the “Ashkenazic” Recension A circulated only within this textual branch.
3.1 The Cairo Genizah Fragments of Sefer Yosippon
The fragments transmitted in the Cairo Genizah represent the earliest textual versions of Sefer Yosippon currently available.24 The dating of the fragments to the 11th century shows that they were produced around two centuries before the Jerusalem manuscript, which Flusser took as the earliest witness of Yosippon. The Genizah fragments were written much closer to the presumable production-date of the text in the beginning of the 10th century in Southern Italy. These fragments do not attest to the entire text of Yosippon, yet there are fragments presenting the first as well as the last chapter of the text. This supports the notion that the fragments belonged to codices encompassing the Hebrew book of Yosippon as a whole.25 Regarding additions and interpolations to the text that establish the differences between the recensions, the fragments from the Cairo Genizah do not contain any of them save one. Their textual version does not include either the story of Daniel or the Testimonium Flavianum.26 But they do contain the interpolated portions of the Alexander romance.27 The fragments also differ in wording from the Jerusalem manuscript on which Flusser based his edition, at least in those passages presented by the fragments.28
On paleographic grounds, the transmitted Genizah fragments can be divided into four groups, each group containing a number of fragments that belong to the same codex.29 Ca. 20 fragments belong to the oldest of these codices, the so-called Codex Italicus, which was probably written in Southern Italy at the end of the 10th/beginning of the 11th century. This codex may come close to the Hebrew “original version” of Sefer Yosippon, if there indeed ever was only one.30 The rest of the fragments can be assigned to three separate codices. These were probably written in the Orient in the 11th and 12th century, so they are called Codex Orientalis I–III.31 In this framework, the fragments can only be described briefly. A thorough and detailed examination of each and every manuscript fragment still needs to be done in a future study, which will require traveling to all the libraries to see the original manuscripts.32
3.1.1 Codex Italicus
The biggest group of fragments of Sefer Yosippon was collected under the shelfmark of Cambridge University Library T-S 10 K 16 No. 1–20.33 The majority of the Cambridge T-S 10 K 16 fragments belong to the same codex, which originated in Southern Italy. The rest, as stated above, can be attributed to the Oriental codices. After a look at the catalogues and the manuscripts presented on the Friedberg Genizah website, to my knowledge there are 24 folios preserved in different libraries that belong to the Italian codex, identifiable according to matching paleographic features. These are:
Cambridge, University Library, T-S 10 K 16, No. 16 (1 folio; SY 23–24)
Cambridge, University Library, T-S NS 254.91 (1 folio; SY 23–24)
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Heb. d. 64, fol. 120r–v (1 folio; SY 26–27)
Cambridge, University Library, T-S 10 K 16, No. 10 (1 folio; SY 36–38)
Cambridge, University Library, T-S 10 K 16, No. 15 (2 folios; SY 45–46)
Cambridge, University Library, T-S NS 175.75 (1 folio; SY 48)
St. Petersburg, Russian National Library, Evr. Antonin B 917 (2 folios; SY 49–51)34
Cambridge, University Library, T-S AS 213.32 and 34 (tiny pieces; SY 49–50)
Cambridge, University Library, T-S 10 K 16, No. 17 (2 folios; SY 50–51)
Cambridge, University Library, Lewis-Gibson Glass 7 (2 folios; SY 54–56)
Cambridge, University Library, T-S 10 K 16, No. 18 (1 folio; SY 74–75)
Paris, Library of the Alliance Israélite Universelle VII A.8 (1 folio; SY 76)
Cambridge, University Library, T-S 10 K 16, No. 18, 11, 14, 19 (4 folios; SY 77, 79–81)
St. Petersburg, Russian National Library, Evr. Antonin B 916 (1 folio; SY 84–85)
Cambridge, University Library, T-S 10 K 16, No. 13 and 12 (4 folios; SY 85– 86, 89)
The folios of this codex present parts of SY Chapters 23–27, 36–38, 45–46, 48–51, 54–56, 74–77, 79–81, 84–86, and the last chapter, 89. The text transmitted starts with the battle of the Maccabees with Antiochus Eupator and ends with the story of Masada. The final page of the codex (T-S 10 K 16.20 No. 12) reveals in a different script the name of a later owner of the manuscript, Yeshua bar Yoshiahu b. Shemayya ha-Gaon (second half of the 12th century). He was a judge in Old Cairo/Fustat and the nephew of another judge, named Abraham ben Shemayya (1092–1132). From this it can be assumed that the nephew, Yeshua, lived around the 1140/1150s and bought books such as this one and had others copied for him.35 So, this codex was produced in Southern Italy, but later brought to Cairo where it came into the possession of a Jewish judge who was interested in books. As we will see, Codex Orientalis I may have appended the first part of the Interpolation to Alexander. Thus, it was in the Middle East that the story of Alexander’s marvellous travels entered the text of Yosippon.36
The other three hands which I have arranged into groups I label Codex Orientalis I, II and III, since they were probably written in the Orient in the course of the 12th century.
3.1.2 Codex Orientalis I
Codex Orientalis I encompasses eight folios, presenting the beginning of Yosippon until chapter 10. These are:
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Heb. d. 64, fol. 118v–119v (2 folios; SY 1 and 9)
Cambridge, University Library, T-S 10 K 16, No. 3, 4 and 5 (4 folios; SY 1–2, 10)
Geneva, Bibliothèque publique et universitaire, No. 34 (2 folios; Alexander romance)37
Especially interesting for the textual history of Sefer Yosippon is the fact that fragment T-S 10 K 16 No. 5, fol. 2r–v provides the text of SY 3. The text leaves SY 3 at the final line (72) in Flusser’s edition and continues directly with SY 6, line 181. There are no gaps or holes or missing pages in the manuscript. The same can be seen in all of the manuscripts that belong to Recension A of Yosippon. Thus, the assumption that parts of SY 3 and SY 4–6 were not part of the earliest textual stage of Yosippon is confirmed by the fragments from the Cairo Genizah.38
Another fragment of this codex presents SY 10 of Sefer Yosippon, which contains the story of Alexander’s meeting with the High Priest and with Sanballat in Jerusalem (T-S 10 K 16, No. 3). In the later recensions, according to the traditional view, this chapter was enlarged by two interpolations, which include passages from the Alexander Romance. The first one describes Alexander’s marvelous travels. The second interpolation pertains to Alexander’s birth story. The earliest complete manuscripts to have the first of these interpolations on Alexander belong to Recension B of Yosippon and date from the 14th and 15th century. This interpolation consists of a compilation of Alexander’s wars and travels, ending with a chronicle from Alexander the Great to the Roman Emperor Augustus derived from the Hebrew Alexander Romance as it is known from MS Parma, Palatina 2457 (de Rossi 1087; Italy, 14th century). This latter manuscript up to now has been the only known textual witness to this version apart from Yosippon’s manuscripts.39 However, recently a new fragment has been identified that is definitely part of this Oriental codex of Yosippon, from the University Library of Geneva, No. 34. This fragment provides passages from the first interpolation on Alexander taken from the Greek Alexander Romance and is probably the earliest existing textual witness to this Hebrew version; it was produced in the Near East in the 12th century.40
At the same time, these passages are part of interpolation A concerning Alexander in Yosippon, which was thought to be added to the text much later. Since these passages in the Geneva fragment are presented in the same script as that of the other fragments of Codex Orientalis I, the crucial question is: were these pages part of the copy of Yosippon in this codex, or is this a witness to a separate part of the codex that encompasses a copy of the Alexander romance?
If future discoveries of fragments belonging to this codex show that these two folios were part of Sefer Yosippon, then the whole story of how the interpolations of Alexander entered into the text of Yosippon has to be rewritten. This would mean that already at a very early stage of textual production, namely in the 12th century, the Alexander romance was integrated into Yosippon in the Near East.
3.1.3 Codex Orientalis II
The reconstruction of this codex of Sefer Yosippon was already undertaken by Simon Hopkins in 1978.41 The codex, written in the East in the 12th century, encompasses five folios presenting passages from chapters 3–10 in Yosippon. Again, as in Codex Orientalis I, SY 3 shows a direct transition to SY 6, l. 181 (Cambridge Or 1080 A 45.1). Thus, this codex too lacks chapters 4–6 (the interpolation on Daniel), another proof that these chapters were not part of Yosippon in the Cairo Genizah. Moreover, this codex has parallels to the texts transmitted in Codex Orientalis I in that both codices present passages from chapter 9.
Cambridge, University Library, Or. 1080 A 45.1 (1 folio; SY 3/6)
Cambridge, University Library, T-S 10 K 16, No. 20 (2 folios; SY 7–9)
Cambridge, University Library, T-S C 2.206 (2 folios; SY 9)
3.1.4 Codex Orientalis III
This codex, written in the East in the 12th century like the other Oriental codices, comprises ten folios, the second biggest group of folios belonging to one single codex after Codex Italicus. It preserves passages from chapters 38–41, 43–46, 49–50, meaning that there are several folios that contain parallel texts to the Italian Codex, especially with regard to chapters 46 and 50. These are:
Cambridge, University Library, T-S 10 K 16, No. 6–9, 1–2 (SY 38–41, 43–46)
St. Petersburg, Russian National Library, Evr. Antonin B 283 (SY 49–50)
There are also fragments of Yosippon which do not belong to these codices, but to others.42
This overview of the early Cairo Genizah fragments of Sefer Yosippon has shown that a considerable number of Hebrew manuscript fragments is preserved in the Cairo Genizah, which represent the earliest extant textual witnesses to the Hebrew text of Yosippon. The fragments belonging to Codex Italicus were produced very close to the time of the production of the book in Southern Italy at the beginning of the 10th century. From there the text, even the manuscript, i.e. Codex Italicus itself, was brought to the East, copied, and later stored in the Genizah of the Ben Ezra synagogue in Fustat, where it was discovered at the end of the 19th century. The other codices represent Eastern copies of the Italian codex.
The fact that the Geneva fragments present the same script as Codex Orientalis I and have certain portions of the Alexander romance could indicate that the first Alexander interpolation was appended to the text during the copying of Sefer Yosippon in the East. However, in Ashkenazic Recension A, it is missing—the manuscripts of this recension do not include this interpolation. This means that Ashkenazic Recension A was derived from a text lacking the Alexander interpolation, and thus that Sefer Yosippon was brought from Italy to Ashkenaz in a textual version without the Alexander interpolation. The version of Yosippon that circulated in the East in the 12th century, however, included that passage, suggesting that it was added there. This hypothesis is supported by Vatican Urb. 52, which is close to the Genizah group. In this manuscript, discussed below, the interpolation very probably was part of the text of Yosippon. Furthermore, the Alexander interpolation is included in all manuscripts of Recensions B and C. From this it follows that the version of Yosippon that circulated in the East became the starting point for the later recensions. In contrast, the version of Yosippon that circulated in Ashkenaz became a separate textual branch that was further enriched by interpolations like the Testimonium Flavianum (see section 3.2 below). However, these interpolations did not enter Recensions B and C; thus Ashkenazic A had only a minor influence on the textual development of Yosippon in Recensions B and C. This assumption is supported by the fact that the Cairo Genizah fragments reveal a different version of the final chapter than the manuscripts of Ashkenazic A; it is actually the version of the Cairo Genizah that is found in Recension B and C.43
This demonstrates the necessity of a new edition of the Cairo Genizah fragments of Sefer Yosippon, because their textual versions contribute extensively to our understanding of the textual history of Yosippon and, in particular, to the early textual stages represented in these fragments.
3.2 Manuscripts of Ashkenazic Recension A
The following three manuscripts form the second group, the so-called Ashkenazic Recension A of Sefer Yosippon. They are: MS Jerusalem, National Library oct. 4120, MS New York 3572 (ENA 1674), and MS Israel Museum B61.09.0803 (so called “Rothschild Miscellany,” former Israel Museum 150/51/12). They share a number of specific features, which are not found in the other versions of the text. They all have a note saying that the text is based on a copy written by Gershom, the “great teacher” (
Furthermore, the manuscripts of this group do not encompass SY 3, l. 58 to the end of SY 6, i.e. they do not include the story of Daniel and Zerubavel as stated already several times. Instead, they contain a passage on the death of Darius.46 This feature they share with the Cairo Genizah fragments, supporting the assumption that SY 3–6 in Flusser’s edition were not part of the early textual stages of Sefer Yosippon, but were added later, probably by Yeraḥme’el ben Solomon in his reworked text of Yosippon in MS Oxford, Heb. d. 11 (see below).
Other characteristic features of Ashkenazic A are found in the beginning of Chapter 9, which has a different arrangement than the other textual versions.47 In SY 60, ll. 58–143 are included in the manuscripts of the Ashkenazic redaction A but are missing or replaced in the other versions.48 MS Israel Museum B61.09.0803 (“Rothschild Miscellany,”) provides several additional passages in the text that are not found in the other manuscripts either of Ashkenazic A or of Recension B or C. The most famous is a version of the Testimonium Flavianum, which will be discussed shortly below.
Finally, in this group of manuscripts the course of the final events at Masada differs from the other versions. In the description of the murder of the women and children at Masada, the manuscripts of the Ashkenazic Recension state that the women and children were killed the day before, and then the men spent the night together, mourning their fate, before going to fight the next morning.49 In the Cairo Genizah version, all the people, men, women and children, mourn together during the night, and then the women and children are killed in the morning before the men leave for battle. Yet, it is the version in the Cairo Genizah fragments that is also found in the manuscripts of Recensions B and C. This again supports the notion that Ashkenazic Recension A was derived from the early versions in the Cairo Genizah and then reworked in several ways including its ending. These changes did not find their way into the other versions of Sefer Yosippon, but are only found in this group of manuscripts.
The following is a synoptic representation of the end of SY 89 from line 127 in Flusser, providing the text of the Genizah in comparison with MS Jerusalem 4120:50
3.2.1 (ת ) Jerusalem, National Library of Israel, Heb. oct. 4120
[B 65] Italy, 1282, Ashkenazic semicursive, octavo, parchment, 119 folios, linings.55
This manuscript is the one on which Flusser based his edition. It was written in Italy by Benjamin, son of Abraham, who finished it on the 2nd of Adar, 1282.56 He might also have copied MS Parma 2530 (de Rossi 331),57 containing biblical writings (Psalms to Nehemiah), in 1260. In this case, the copyist could be identified with Benjamin ben Abraham from the famous Anav family.58 This family claimed to be able to trace their descent to the nobles of Jerusalem, brought to Rome by Titus.59 This could explain interest in the subject of Yosippon. Benjamin lived in Rome, was the author of several works, and belongs to the most important liturgical poets of his time. His poems refer to the persecutions the Jews were suffering in Italy during the 13th century, e.g. the agitations by Nicolas Donin, the burning of the Talmud in 1245, or the desecration of the Jewish cemetery in Rome in 1270.60 The Jews in Rome were facing a time of persecution, which also may have fostered interest in the reason for the Jewish exile, the history of the destruction of the Temple as told in Yosippon.
The first two folios are filled with many scribbles. Among them on fol. 1r it says:
The manuscript belongs to the group of Ashkenazic redaction A and has all above-mentioned characteristics: On fol. 42v and 43r there are the remarks inserted into the text identifying the words as those of the scribe found in a manuscript written by Rabbenu Gershom (
3.2.2 (נ ) New York, Jewish Theological Seminary MS 3572 (ENA 1674)
[F 29377], Orient or Byzantium, 16th century, semicursive script, paper, 73 folios.63
This manuscript was copied in the Orient or Byzantium around the 15th or 16th century. It begins with SY 2, l. 47–124 on fol. 1r–v. Fol. 2r–v and starts again with SY 7, l. 10. From here the manuscripts encompasses the text until the end. The attribution of the text to Gershom Me’or ha-Gola is found on fol. 26r–v. For fol. 50ff. the lower part of each page is missing. The text is close to that of MS Jerusalem oct. 4120. It is an example of the circulation of the Ashkenazic A version in the East at a later period, long after the Cairo Genizah fragments were produced.
3.2.3 (ד ) Israel Museum B61.09.0803 (Rothschild Miscellany)/formerly Israel Museum 180/51/12
[F 32638] Italy after 1450/before 1479/80, cursive script, parchment, octavo, fol. 206r–298r.64
In contrast to the other two manuscripts of this group, the so-called “Rothschild Miscellany” contains more than just the text of Sefer Yosippon. It is a codex of 473 folio pages, consisting of two parts: a Bible manuscript encompassing Psalms, Job, and Proverbs, and a prayer book in the Ashkenazic rite. On the margins of the second part a great many narratives, halakhic texts, and philosophical pieces were added, among them Sefer Yosippon, Sefer ha-Qabbalah by Abraham ibn Daud, Mashal ha-Qadmoni, and more.65 The manuscript is lavishly decorated with illustrations, ornaments, and gold initials in the Renaissance style, and was probably produced in the workshop of Leonardo Bellini.66 It represents one of the most impressive illuminated Hebrew manuscripts known today.67 It was produced between 1453 and 1479/80 in Northern Italy. The name of the owner and probably the commissioner of this manuscript is mentioned: Moses ben Yequtiel ha-Kohen. The name of the scribe may have been Shabtai.68
The text of Sefer Yosippon starts on the margin of fol. 206r. Its artistic design is demonstrated by the fact that the story of the seven Maccabean brothers accompanies the piyyutim of Ḥanukkah, especially the piyyut by Joseph bar Shlomo (
The text of Sefer Yosippon presented in this manuscript betrays all the features of the two other manuscripts of Ashkenazic Recension A, described above.71 However, the text has three additional passages. First, it provides a short description of Cleopatra’s suicide by snakes in SY 47.72 Second, it includes the so-called Testimonium Flavianum of Yosippon, a bundle of short texts added to SY 57 and 58. The most famous scene involves a certain Jeshu, who advised the Emperor Caligula against the Jews. It is inserted after the story of the Legatio ad Gaium in SY 58 and has parallels to some early versions of the Toledot Yeshu. This passage is preceded by the story of Liza, who bore an illegitimate son after intercourse with a false God. The final passage tells the story of Hannah, who was pursued by the elders in her garden, a reworking of the Book of Susanna.73
These texts appear in Sefer Yosippon at a place at which the author deviated from his source, i.e. De excidio Hierosolymitano or Ps-Hegesippus, and added the story of Philo’s Legatio ad Gaium.74 A later copyist found this the ideal spot to add a longer passage on the evil advisor of the emperor who tried to start a persecution but was blocked by divine interference. This passage has parallels to the earlier versions of Toledot Yeshu and may have been inspired by this polemical text.75 In discussing what the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus’ Antiquities might have looked like, this passage from Yosippon was used in order to reconstruct the original wording of Josephus’ text.76
The third interpolation is an addition at the end of the text which continues the story of the prisoners after the downfall of Masada. Titus brought them to Rome and some of them settled in Otranto and in Tarent. They became the ancestors of the Southern Italian communities, as described also in the Megillat Aḥimaatz (written in 1025 in Capua).77 This passage appears in other manuscripts of Sefer Yosippon too. MS Oxford, Hunt. 345 and the early printed edition of Mantua 1475 include it. MS Oxford Heb. d. 11 provides a shorter version lacking the information on Spain.78 The passage became a foundation legend for the Jewish communities in Southern Italy, who came to flourish in the 8th–10th centuries.79
Finally, this manuscript bears a hint at the date of production of Yosippon or of an early copy of the text. The text reads as follows:80
ואגרות הרבה כאלה מצאנו בספר יוסף בן גוריון ולא כתבנו אותם פה כי הרבה לספר באגרות האלה אשר מצאנו מספרו משנת חמש מאות ושמנה שנה לחורבן הבית ואנחנו כתבנו והעתקנו מן הספר מספר יוסף בן גוריון הכהן בשנת שמנה מאות ושמנים וחמשה לחורבן.
And many more letters like these we found in the book Joseph ben Gorion and we did not write them down here, because he wrote a lot in these letters which we found in his book from the year 508 of the destruction of the Temple [576],81 and we wrote them and copied them from the book, the book of Josef ben Gorion, the priest, in the year 885 of the destruction [953].
This note led Flusser to assume that Sefer Yosippon was written or finished in the year 953. However, this need not necessarily be true. It could also provide the date of the copy of the text that later was used as a Vorlage for the text in the Rothschild Miscellany. Recent research supports the theory that Yosippon was completed in the first half of the 10th century.82
3.3 Transition to Recension B
3.3.1 (א ) Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, Urbinas ebr. 52
[F 00691] Italy, 14th or 15th century, semi-cursive script, octavo, paper with linings, 186 folio.83
This manuscript represents the transition between Recension A and B.84 It is incomplete: it lacks the beginning and the end as well as some passages in the body of the text.85 As noted by the copyist, there were pages missing in his Vorlage.86 The examination of the text yields the following: The text does not contain the interpolations on Daniel or the other interpolations of Recension A.87 It shares some minor textual parallels with the Ashkenazi Recension A, but it does not contain the attribution to Gershom Me’or ha-Golah.88 There are some features in the text of this manuscript that also appear in the witnesses of Recensions B and C, e.g. the structure of the beginning of SY 9 and the missing lines 136–173 in SY 43.89 Thus, Flusser’s characterization of the manuscript being a mixture of features of Recension A and B is correct. Obviously, the text of the Vorlage was derived from the Cairo Genizah version and then reworked, maybe on the basis of a text close to Recension B.
One of the crucial points concerning the attribution of this manuscript is the question of whether it contained the first interpolation of the Alexander romance. Unfortunately, in Vatican Urb. 52, the chapter on Alexander’s visit is incomplete. Flusser was of the opinion that the missing folios could have encompassed the first interpolation of Alexander and that therefore the manuscript should be seen as a witness of Recension B. Moreover, he thought that this manuscript could have been the Vorlage for the Arabic translation of Sefer Yosippon.90
A look at the manuscript reveals the following: When the text breaks up in Chapter 10, l. 58, the copyist noted:
3.3.2 (י ) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Heb. d. 11 (Neubauer 2797/1)
[F 16716], Ashkenaz, first half 14th century, parchment, quarto, semicursive script.92
This textual witness to Sefer Yosippon too represents the transitional stage from Recension A to Recension B. It contains the famous Sefer ha-Zikhronot by Eleazar ben Asher ha-Levi, compiled in the first quarter of the 14th century, a huge collection of texts which includes a copy of Yosippon.93 The family of Eleazar ben Asher ha-Levi lived in the Rhineland.94 His compilation of texts displays an interest in texts outside the Jewish traditional canon with a historical outlook, beginning with biblical history, the Second Temple period, rabbinic and medieval times, and coming up to the messianic age. Sefer ha-Zikhronot is seen as one of the more important examples of medieval Jewish historiography, even though it is a compilation rather than an original historical work.95 It also contains some of the most famous Hebrew narrative texts, as the Alexander romance or the Mishle Sendebar.96 Yosippon provides the text with its historical backbone for the Second Temple period. Eleazar took this version of Yosippon from an earlier compilation of texts produced by the 12th century Italian author and compilator Yeraḥmeʾel ben Solomon.97 It is not clear where the compilation of Yeraḥmeʾel in Sefer ha-Zikhronot starts and where it ends.98 There is a core of texts that are attributed to him, because Yeraḥmeʾel inserted remarks mentioning himself. These are also found in the text of Yosippon, and thus it is included in Yeraḥmeʾel’s collection.99
Yeraḥmeʾel was interested in mathematics, calendrical issues, poetry, and history.100 The compilation suggests that he tried to establish chronological tables and lists with the help of Jewish and non-Jewish sources.101 Moreover, Yeraḥmeʾel translated texts from Latin, Greek, and Aramaic into Hebrew.102 His collection in Sefer ha-Zikhronot includes Hebrew translations of the Aramaic parts of the biblical Book of Daniel as well as translations of the Greek additions to Daniel in the Septuagint.103 The fact that Yeraḥmeʾel dealt with these texts in particular led to the assumption that it was he who added the stories from Daniel into his version of Sefer Yosippon.104 The interpolation contains the tales of Daniel becoming the advisor of King Darius (SY 4), Daniel in the lion’s den, and Daniel and Bel from the Septuagint (SY 5 and 6).105 The second part deals with Zerubavel, who becomes Daniel’s successor as advisor to the king and wins the contest of the three youths (SY 7). As a consequence, Zerubavel is sent to Jerusalem by the Persian King Cyrus with the order to rebuild the Temple. If the above hypothesis is true, SY 3–6 were added by Yeraḥmeʾel in the 12th century in Italy, and only from that time onward were they an inherent part of Yosippon.106
The version of Sefer Yosippon within Sefer ha-Zikhronot has some insertions in Chapter 9, the story of Esther and Mordechai. This chapter in Yosippon is peculiar, because it does not present the story as it is told in the biblical book in the first place, but mostly consists of the additions to the Septuagint, i.e. the plot against Ahashverosh, Mordechai’s dream, Mordechai’s and Esther’s prayer, and Esther’s reception by Ahashverosh.107 The compilator of Sefer ha-Zikhronot added a number of passages into this chapter which are not part of Yosippon. Thus, after Esther’s reception follows Haman’s letter and two versions of the throne of Solomon.108 These texts are found in the various Esther-Midrashim. After that the text returns to Yosippon and continues with SY 10, Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem.
This version of Sefer Yosippon also includes biographical passages concerning Philo and Josephus. The note on Philo is added to SY 58, which tells the story of the legatio ad Gaium headed by Philo.109 The passage on Josephus is added at the end of the text and follows as a note on the account of prisoners taken by Titus to Rome, which later turned into one of the ideas behind the foundation myths of the European Diaspora Communities.110 It is not clear whether these parts were added by Yeraḥmeʾel in the 12th century or by the second compiler Eleazar in the 14th century. In other cases, there are notes indicating the treatment of the text by the redactor. So, it most probably was Eleazar who detached Chapters 1 and 2 of Yosippon from the body of the text and put them in between other texts that precede the copy of Yosippon.111
Thus, Sefer ha-Zikhronot contains a copy of Sefer Yosippon that was reworked and changed, in particular by the insertion of passages like the interpolation of Daniel, biographical notes on Philo and Josephus, or the short passage at the end concerning the prisoners of Titus. The text of Yosippon preserved herein is not based on the textual version known as the Ashkenazic redaction A, but continues the textual tradition as represented in the Cairo Genizah fragments and in Recension B, as can be seen in the final chapter (see above in the discussion of Ashkenazic A). Moreover, here and in all manuscripts of Recensions B and C there is a gap in SY 60, ll. 58–143. Therefore, this manuscript represents the transition between Recension A and Recension B.
4 Manuscripts of Recension B
As demonstrated above, Recension B is characterized first and foremost by continuing the textual versions of the Cairo Genizah fragments and second by the integration of the stories of Daniel and Zerubavel (SY 3–6).112 Before the discovery of the fragment of the Alexander romance in one of the codices of the Cairo Genizah, the inclusion of two interpolations to the chapter on Alexander’s visit to Jerusalem (SY 10) was the criterion that defined Recension B, because all the manuscripts attributed to Recension B include at least the first interpolation on Alexander.113 However, as demonstrated above, this interpolation was possibly already added to the text of Yosippon in the Cairo Genizah codices in the East during the 12th century; from there this version spread back to Italy, whence most of the manuscripts of Recension B originate (all of them date from the 14th century onward).
The second interpolation depicts Alexander’s birth and childhood. This interpolation has many parallels to the birth story told in the Hebrew Alexander Romances transmitted in MS London 145 and MS Paris Hébreu 671.114 This interpolation is probably contained in the newly discovered MS Milano, Ambrosiana I 67, although only fragmentarily. It is included in the print edition of Mantua 1475. It is also included in all the manuscripts of Recension C (see below). In all manuscripts that contain the second Interpolation the texts of both interpolations have been reworked.115
Recension B, as established by Flusser, was represented by one manuscript only (MS Vatican 408; Italy 1443, written for Giannozzo Manetti; see below) and the early print produced in the workshop of Abraham Conat in Mantua in 1475.116 After the reexamination of Sefer Yosippon’s manuscripts, four additional witnesses were classified as Recension B, so altogether there are now five manuscript witnesses for this recension. These additional manuscripts are: MS Budapest A 355 (previously identified as Recension A by Flusser) and the recently discovered MS Milano I 67 (unknown to Flusser) as complete manuscripts. Furthermore, MS Oxford Hunt. 345 (seen as an epitome by Flusser) and the binding fragments from MS Munich 153 (unknown to Flusser).117 Several of these manuscripts were written around the 15th century, meaning that at least in Italy Recensions A (see “Rothschild Miscellany” and Vatican Urb. 52) and B seem to have circulated at the same time.
The comparison of the textual witnesses results in the conclusion that there are three categories of Recension B: the first has a shortened textual version (early print Mantua 1475, the binding fragments in MS Munich, Steinschneider 153, and the excerpt in MS Oxford Hunt. 345).118 The text is shorter than in the manuscript versions of Recension A, from which many words are omitted. All references to Joseph ben Gorion being the compilator or copyist of Sefer Yosippon’s text are missing.119 A superficial comparison between the text in the Cairo Genizah fragments and this shortened version shows that the latter has less text and simplified syntactical structures. The circulation of Sefer Yosippon in such an epitomized version is proven not only by these manuscripts, but also by the writings of Abraham ibn Daud, who used a shortened text of Yosippon as a Vorlage for his compilation Dorot Olam.120 Yet he probably did not use one of the transmitted manuscripts, since there are few textual parallels. He may have reworked his Vorlage in order to fit the text into his concept of Dorot Olam.121
MS Vatican ebr. 408 together with MS Budapest Kaufmann A 355 present a version in which the text continues the Genizah version, and both manuscripts include the Interpolation on Daniel, the first interpolation of the Alexander romance (his wondrous travels), and the Testimonium Flavianum. Finally, MS Milano I 67 presents a text that is further enlarged in comparison with the previous groups and which also shares some characteristics with Recension C (i.e., the interpolation of Alexander’s birth story), so this manuscript demonstrates the transition from Recension B to Recension C.122
4.1 Group 1: Short Version
4.1.1 (מ ) Mantua 1475
Recension B is transmitted in a shortened version, which is represented in the early print Mantua 1475.123 This was produced in the workshop of Abraham Conat who added an introduction in which he ascribed the book to Joseph ben Gorion:
4.1.2 (ה ) Oxford, Bodleian Library, Huntington 345 (Neubauer 793/2)
[F 20330] Orient, 1462, semicursive, paper, fol. 218v–245v.126
This manuscript presents an excerpt of Sefer Yosippon starting with Chapter 74 until the end (SY 89) and is dated to 1462. The text is shorter than the other versions, its closest parallel being the Mantua print of 1475. At the end it also provides the passage on Titus’ prisoners. The text contains parallels to the binding fragments in MS Munich 153/8 (see below).
4.1.3 München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. Hebr. 153 VIII
[F 25997], Ashkenaz, 14th century, parchment fragments used as binding fragments for Munich Clm 3560, semicursive, 4 folios.127
These fragments were found in a book binding in the framework of the “Books within Books” project in Germany.128 They encompass bits of the text of SY 29, 35, 82, and 89. In the last two passages they show parallels to Mantua 1475 and Oxford Hunt. 345. With these textual parallels these fragments provide proof that in Ashkenaz during the 14th century there was not only the Ashkenazic Recension A available, but also Recension B. Both versions of Yosippon circulated during the same time in the same geographical region.129
4.2 Group 2: Long Version
4.2.1 (ק ) Budapest, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Kaufmann A 355
[F 15131] Ashkenaz/Italy, 16th century, semicursive, paper with linings, 236 pages.130
This manuscript is incomplete. It starts with SY 5, l. 57 and ends with SY 88, l. 58. It is numbered according to pages. The text includes the interpolations on Daniel as well as the first interpolation of the Alexander romance (pp. 18–34). Moreover, this manuscript includes the story of Cleopatra’s death (p. 124), like the Rothschild Miscellany of Ashkenazic Recension A, so there is a connection between these two recensions. Moreover, Budapest 355 also includes the interpolation of the Testimonium Flavianum in Sefer Yosippon (pp. 158–163). It shares the gap in the text of SY 60, ll. 58–143 with MS Oxford Bod. d. 11 and the other manuscripts of the longer Recension B. So, this manuscript of Yosippon is a perfect example of how the different recensions start to merge in the 15th and 16th centuries. It is difficult to determine the role of this witness in the stemma, which is why Flusser placed it in Recension A; in my opinion it belongs to Recension B. Yet, since there are overlapping interpolations with the Rothschild Miscellany, there seems to be a fluid textual tradition here.
4.2.2 (ר ) Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica ebr. 408
[F 08636] Italy, Fano 1443, Italian semicursive script, parchment, octavo, 153 folios.131
This manuscript belongs to the long version of Recension B. The manuscript was copied in Fano/Italy by Elijah ben Moses for the Florentine humanist Giannozzo Manetti (1396–1459). The copy was completed on Thursday, 28th of Kislev 5204 = 1443.132 The text of Sefer Yosippon contains the Daniel interpolation and the first interpolation to the Alexander chapter. It also possesses a version of the Testimonium Flavianum which is different from the passages in MS Rothschild Miscellany and MS Budapest 355 (see above).
This is the only manuscript of Sefer Yosippon that was definitely written for a Christian audience.133 The Italian humanists grasped Josephus as an accessible source for Jewish history. Their interest in Yosippon, of course, was probably mainly sparked by the quest for information on Jesus in these writings. Thus, the humanists knew Josephus as well as Yosippon. Giannozzo Manetti, who commissioned this copy, started his study of Hebrew in 1435 and admired Philo and Josephus for their knowledge of Greek and Hebrew respectively. Josephus, in his mastery of both languages, was an inspiration for his own studies. Manetti owned copies of Josephus’ works in Latin as well.134
So, Vatican 408 is the manuscript that Manetti commissioned from Elijah ha-Melamed of Fano in 1443. However, it seems as if he did not use it much. In his writings, he quotes Josephus several times, but never Sefer Yosippon. It has been argued that his interest in Yosippon was mainly elicited by the fact that he hoped to find a reference to Jesus in that text.135 The copyist was aware of the fact that his commissioner was Christian and might be searching for exactly this information. Therefore, he decided not to include the whole passage. So in fact, MS Vatican ebr. 408 does include the Testimonium Flavianum from Yosippon. Yet the manuscript does not encompass the passage on Jesus in its full scope; the text breaks up halfway through and omits the ending.136 It starts with a narrative of Jews, who are drawn to Christianity. Among them is a certain man who is described with these words:
4.3 Group 3: Transition to Recension C
4.3.1 Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana I 67 Inf.
[F 41181] Spain, 15th/16th century, semicursive, quarto, paper, 80 folios. No digitization available.140
This manuscript is one of the witnesses of Sefer Yosippon that was not known to Flusser. The manuscript is incomplete at the beginning and at the end, starting at SY 4, l. 25 and ending at SY 85, l. 6. Thus, it contains the interpolation on Daniel. There are several pages missing in the body of the text. Chapter 10 is incomplete, starting on fol. 9v, but fol. 10r begins with the ending of the second interpolation on Alexander followed by the first interpolation and the Chronicle. This means that this manuscript is the first that included both interpolations on Alexander (see above). It also proves that both interpolations on Alexander were included in Yosippon’s text before the reworking of Judah Mosqoni (see below Recension C). The manuscript lacks SY 55, l. 73 to SY 59, l. 2 (fol. 61v–62r). Therefore, it is not certain whether it contained the Testimonium Flavianum. The text shows expanded phrasing in comparison to the other manuscripts of Recension B. All of these elements support the role of MS Mailand 67 as marking a transitional stage between Recension B and C.
5 Manuscripts of Recension C
In the following, I will discuss the manuscripts of Recension C, which is the longest and the latest version of Sefer Yosippon. This longer recension became the most popular version of the book from the Early Modern period onward—many translations are based on it (the Yiddish translation printed in 1546, the Early English translation in 1561).141 It is presented in three manuscripts, of which two were known to Flusser. The third was identified when I reviewed the Jerusalem IMHM catalogue for Yosippon manuscripts listed there. All three manuscripts were copied in Italy in the 15th century. Recension C was first printed in Constantinople in 1510 and in Venice in 1544. It was used by Haim Hominer, who published this version first in 1956 and later in 1961 and 1967.142
All three manuscripts of Recension C include the introduction by the 14th century scholar Judah Mosqoni (1328 until after 1370).143 According to his own words, he had several manuscripts of Sefer Yosippon of various length and quality before him:
כי מצאתיו ארוך כזה מלבד שהיו חסרים ממנו ספורים סודיים רבים אשר המה העקר והיסוד בספר. והם הספורים המלמדים להועיל. גם מצאתיו מקוצר אשר קצרו והעלים ריב ספוריו החכם ר׳ אברהם ב׳ר דוד הלוי הידוע בן אל צדיק מגדולי חכמי גרנאטא. וגם מצאתיו עוד מקוצר על דרך אחרת קרובה לדרך ר’ אברהם הנ’ז בהתעלות ספורים רבים גם כן קצרו החכם הגדול ר׳ שמואל הנגיד מגדולי מדינת קורטובה. ואמנם עזרני ייי ואמצאה את הספר כלו בלשון החכם יוסף הכהן בן גוריון הכהן מחברו ולא חסר ממנו ספור אחד מכל הספורים אשר כתב בו כאשר אודיע עוד. ואז שמחתי מאד בו במוצא שלל רב … אמרתי אני עם לבי מה יש לעשות בזה הספר כי אם להוציא במספר צבא הספורים הנמצאים בכלל ספר וספר מהספרים הפרטים. שהם חלקי הספר הכולל הגדול הנקרא בעברי יוסיפון וביוני יוסיפוס וברומי ג׳ושיפוס 144.
Because I found it long like this, except that there were missing from it many important stories, which are the basis and the essence of the book. They are the stories that teach a lesson. And I also found it (the book) shortened, because he shortened it and he omitted many stories, the wise Rabbi Abraham ben David ha-Levi, who is known as a son of God and a righteous from the sages of Granada. And I also found it shortened in another way, (yet) similar to the way Rabbi Abraham did it, who is mentioned above, by omitting many stories. Also the great sage R. Samuel ha-Nagid shortened it, from the great (sages) of the city of Cordoba. And the Lord helped me, and I found the complete book in the language of the wise Joseph ha-Kohen ben Gorion ha-Kohen, its author, and nothing is missing from it, not one of all the stories he wrote in it, as I will mention later. And so I enjoyed it and found great peace ... And I said to myself, what can be done with this book but to publish it with all the multitude of stories that are included in every single book. They constitute the parts of the complete book called in Hebrew Yosippon, in Greek Josephos and in Rumi (Latin) Giosippus.
Mosqoni complained that none of the manuscripts of Sefer Yosippon he found was complete. He mentions the shortened versions of Yosippon, e.g. the one produced by Abraham Ibn Daud.145 Finally, he found one “in the language of the wise Joseph ha-Kohen ben Gorion.” This could mean that he actually saw a text ‘by Josephus himself,’ either in Greek or in Latin. That he knew about translations of Josephus’ works can be derived from the final sentence of the quotation, where he presents the different names of Josephus in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin. This fits in with the character of Recension C, which shows an enlarged and broadened textual version with several additional passages in the text; some seem to have been taken from non-Jewish sources in Latin. The most prominent one is the interpolation about the coronation ceremony of Vespasian. He also may have added passages from the text’s Latin source, De excidio (Ps-Hegesippus).146
Apart from the additions and rewriting of the text, Mosqoni divided the text into books and paragraphs and added a list of contents in his introduction. Moreover, it is in this recension that the author of the text and Joseph ben Gorion (i.e. Flavius Josephus) are unified into one and the same person. From then on, Joseph ben Gorion, i.e. Flavius Josephus, was identified as the author of Sefer Yosippon. In the Christian reception of Yosippon, the identification of Joseph ben Gorion/Flavius Josephus and the author of Yosippon was taken for granted and even used as a polemical tool against the Jews.147 Mosqoni also adds details from Josephus’ biography.148
Judah Mosqoni came from Byzantium, traveled through several countries searching for manuscripts of the Torah commentary by Abraham Ibn Ezra, and finally moved to Majorca.149 There, beginning in 1356, he started to compile his version of Sefer Yosippon. A few years later, in 1362 he began to write a super-commentary on Abraham Ibn Ezra’s commentary on the Torah.150 Mosqoni’s redaction of Yosippon still awaits a more thorough examination with regard to its reworking of the text, its interpolations and their sources, as well as the cultural context in which Mosqoni composed this version.151
Mosqoni’s text shares several features with the reworking of Sefer Yosippon produced by the 12th century Spanish scholar Abraham Ibn Daud known as Divre Malkhe Yisrael, mentioned by Mosqoni in his introduction (see quotation above). This text presents a reworking of Yosippon with a polemical tendency against the Karaites.152 The changes made by Ibn Daud include shortenings of the text as well as added information, such as the Midrash on Zechariah at the end of the text as well as the story of the foundation of Rome by Romulus and Remus. These changes and additions are also found in Mosqoni’s redaction of Yosippon. Therefore, Flusser assumed that Ibn Daud used a manuscript of Recension C. However, in my analysis, I put forth the possibility that Ibn Daud used a manuscript of Recension B and reworked it. The parallels between Ibn Daud’s text and Mosqoni’s redactions of Yosippon therefore are evidence of the fact that Mosqoni used Ibn Daud’s Divre Malkhe Yisrael. Since Mosqoni explicitly says that he used Ibn Daud’s text, it is probable that he took these passages from Ibn Daud when he compiled the long version of Yosippon.153
5.1 (ע ) Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Hébreu 1280
[F 30898] Italy, 1472, square and semi-cursive, parchment and paper, octavo, 186 folios.154
This manuscript was copied by Judah ben Solomon of Camerino in the year 1472 in Lucera for Raphael Cohen from Lunel, who lived in Foggia (here called Manfredonia).155 It has glosses in the margins. The manuscript contains all the characteristic features of the Mosqoni recension, the introduction by Mosqoni (fol. 1r–3v), a list of contents according to paragraphs (fol. 4r–39r), and the interpolation on the coronation of Vespasian (fol. 147r–148r). In SY 58 there is no interpolation of the Testimonium Flavianum as in Recension A and B, but one sentence hints at Jesus nevertheless:156
בימים ההם היו מחלקות רבות וקטטות גדולות ביהודה בין פרושים ובין פריצי ישראל אשר נטו אז אחרי ישוע בן פנדירא הנצרי אשר עשה פליאות גדולות בישראל עד נצחוהו הפרושים ותלוהו על העץ.
In these days there was great strife in Judah between the Perushim and the lawless of Israel who were attracted to Jeshua ben Pandera, the Christian, who did great miracles in Israel until the Perushim defeated him and hanged him on a tree.
5.2 (ח ) Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, Borgiana ebr. 1
[F 11654], Italy, 15th century, semi-cursive script, paper, octavo, 191 folio.157
This manuscript was copied by Ephraim ben Yoav of Moderna for Mordechai ben Benjamin the physician. Unfortunately, the year is not stated. Ephraim copied at least five other manuscripts between the years 1467 and 1501 in Florence and northern Italy, and thus his copy of Sefer Yosippon probably has been produced in the second half of the 15th century as well.158 The folios are numbered by hand and a number is stamped in the left corner below, which deviates by one from the written numeration. The first folio is an addition and contains a description of the codex in Italian.
The text starts with the introduction by Judah Mosqoni (fol. 2r–5r) and his list of contents (fol. 5r–41r) according to paragraph numbers, which are also found in the margins of the text. The text of Sefer Yosippon starts on folio 41v. The interpolation on the coronation of Vespasian is found on fol. 152v–154r. On fol. 129v, at the beginning of SY 58, there is a sentence that may have referred to Jesus. It has been censored and made illegible. The copy is very similar to MS Paris 1280 and was produced around the same time.
5.3 Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, H 70 Inf.
[No Microfilm]; Italy, 15th/16th century, semi-cursive script, paper, 105 folio.
This manuscript was unknown to Flusser. I discovered it in the Biblioteca Ambrosiana in Milan during my visit in 2007. It shares all the characteristics of Recension C. However, the text contains some alterations, e.g. in SY 57–60. In SY 58 there is also a censored, but readable, sentence referring to Jesus slightly different than that in Paris 1280:159
בימים ההם קמו המחלקות והקטטות בין הפרושים והפריצים על דבר ישו בן פלתרא הנצרי שהיו אומרים שהיה משיח עד נצחוהו הפרושים ותלוהו על העץ חב הים ערב פסח.
In those days there arose strife and dispute between the Perushim and the lawless over the matter of Jeshu ben Paltera, the Christian, about whom they said that he was the Messiah until the Perushim defeated him and hanged him on a tree on the eve of the festival of Pessah.160
The three manuscripts transmitting Sefer Yosippon, Recension C, were all produced in Italy during the decades between 1470 and 1500. At the same time, Giannozzo Manetti ordered his copy of Yosippon (Vatican 408/Recension B). The Rothschild Miscellany was produced in Italy between 1450 and 1480, representing the Ashkenazic Recension A and including the Testimonium Flavianum. The interest in Yosippon and the circulation of several recensions at that time in Italy reflects the interest of humanists, both Christian and Jewish, in Second Temple history. The integration and disintegration of the Testimonium Flavianum into the text of Yosippon in the manuscripts mirrors the Jewish-Christian encounter on the subject of Josephus.161 Also in exactly that period Yosippon was printed for the first time in Mantua in 1475. Thus, the copies of Recension C fit with the general interest in historiography in humanist Italy. The text’s development finds ends with this recension. In the following centuries, Yosippon would be printed and translated into various languages, many of them based on Recension C.
6 Conclusion
What does this all mean for our understanding of Sefer Yosippon and the history of its transmission? First of all, the character of Yosippon as an open book that was altered and enlarged by many scribes and scholars needs to be taken into account when dealing with the text. There hardly ever existed “one” single Yosippon. Thus, whenever discussing textual evidence from this book, one must consider which text is meant and in which recension or manuscript the relevant passage is found. Descriptions of the manuscripts support the notion that Yosippon’s textual transmission was a fluid one; at the same time it is possible to establish subgroups of manuscripts belonging to the three established recensions. The literary structure remained as a basis, while the extensions and insertions show how the work was read according to the needs and views of its readers and copyists in their various times and environments.
Second, shortly after it was written in Southern Italy, Sefer Yosippon spread throughout the Mediterranean region and as far as the Near East, as evidenced by the fragments of the Oriental codices preserved in the Cairo Genizah. Here the text was read as a historical narrative taken from non-Jewish sources, which is why it received its first interpolations on Alexander’s wars and travels.162 At the same time, the book was known in Central Europe, i.e. in Ashkenaz and in Spain. In Ashkenaz, Yosippon became a model for the literary formation of Jewish martyrdom. In Spain, the text served Abraham ibn Daud as a means for polemic against the Karaites as well as against the Christians.163
Sefer Yosippon’s manuscript transmission and its reception history in the Medieval Jewish diaspora communities of Europe and the Middle East illuminates the framework in which Yosippon was seen and read by its wider Jewish audience. The interpolations, in particular those on Daniel at the Babylonian court and the Testimonium Flavianum, added material to the Jewish-Christian dispute in the 12th as well as in the 15th century. By integrating these texts into the Hebrew paraphrase of Flavius Josephus’ writings, they served their Jewish readers as ammunition in the struggle over the monopoly of the right to interpret the history of the Second Temple and its destruction by the Romans.164
Appendix: List of Manuscripts of Sefer Yosippon
Recension A
Cairo Genizah
Cambridge, University Library, Or. 1080 A 45.1
Cambridge, University Library, T-S 10 K 16, No. 1–20 (
Cambridge, University Library, T-S AS 213.32 und 34
Cambridge, University Library, T-S C 2.206
Cambridge, University Library, T-S NS 254.91
Cambridge, University Library, T-S NS 175.75
Cambridge, University Library, Lewis-Gibson Glass 7
Geneva, Bibliothèque publique et universitaire, No. 34
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Heb. d. 64
Paris, Library of the Alliance Israélite Universelle VII A.8
St. Petersburg, Russian National Library, Evr. Antonin B 916
St. Petersburg, Russian National Library, Evr. Antonin B 917 (
Ashkenazic A
Israel Museum 180/51/12 (Rothschild Miscellany)/ Israel Museum B61.09. 0803 (
Jerusalem, National Library of Israel, Heb. oct. 4120 (
New York, Jewish Theological Seminary MS 3572 (ENA 1674) (
Transition to Recension B
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, Urbinas ebr. 52 [
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Heb. d. 11 (Neubauer 2797/1) (
Recension B
Group 1: Short Version
Oxford, Bodleian Library, Huntington 345 (Neubauer 793/2) (
München, Bayerische Staatsbibliothek, Cod. Hebr. 153 VIII
Group 2: Long Version
Budapest, Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Kaufmann A 355 (
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica ebr. 408 (
Group 3: Transition to Recension C
Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana I 67 Inf.
Recension C
Milano, Biblioteca Ambrosiana, H 70 Inf.
Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale Hébreu 1280 (
Vatican, Biblioteca Apostolica, Borgiana ebr. 1 (
Bibliography
Allony, Nehemyah. The Jewish Library in the Middle Ages: Book Lists from the Cairo Genizah. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 2006. [Hebrew]
Bauer-Eberhardt, Ulrike. “Die Rothschild-Miscellanea in Jerusalem—Hauptwerk des Leonardo Bellini,” Pantheon 42 (1984): 229–237.
Bay, Carson. “The ‘Maria Story’ in Greek, Latin, & Hebrew: The Teknophagia Episode (BJ 6.201–13) in Josephus, Latin Josephus, Rufinus, Pseudo-Hegesippus, and Sefer Yosippon with Introduction, Texts, Translations, Notes, & Commentary.” Judaica 3 (2022): 1–105.
Bay, Carson. “The Jerusalem Temple and Jewish Identity: Between Pseudo-Hegesippus & Sefer Yosippon: The Discursive Aftermath of Josephus’ Temple Ekphrasis.” EJJS 16 (2022): 1–25.
Beit-Arié, Malachi. The Makings of the Medieval Hebrew Book: Studies in Palaeography and Codicology. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1993.
Beit-Arié, Malachi. “Transmission of Texts by Scribes and Copyists: Unconscious and Critical Interferences.” Pages 33–51 in Artefact and Text: The Re-Creation of Jewish Literature in Medieval Hebrew Manuscripts. Edited by Philip S. Alexander and Alexander Samely. Manchester, The John Rylands Library, 1993.
Bekkum, Wout, van, ed. A Hebrew Alexander Romance according to MS London, Jews’ College no. 145. Leuven: Peeters, 1992.
Bernheimer, Carlo. Codices Hebraici Bybliothecae Ambrosianae. Florence: Casa Editrice Leo S. Olschki, 1933.
Bonfil, Robert, ed. History and Folklore in a Medieval Jewish Chronicle: The Family Chronicle of Aḥimaʽaz ben Paltiel. Edited by Robert Bonfil. Leiden: Brill, 2009.
Börner-Klein, Dagmar, and Beat Zuber. Josippon: Jüdische Geschichte vom Anfang der Welt bis zum Ende der ersten Aufstands gegen Rom. Munich: Marix Verlag, 2010.
Bowman, Steven B. “Dates in Sefer Josippon.” Pages 349–359 in Pursuing the Text: Studies in Honour of Ben Zion Wacholder on the Occasion of his 70th Birthday. Edited by John C. Reeves and John Kampen. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.
Bowman, Steven B. “Yosippon and Jewish Nationalism.” PAAJR 61 (1995): 23–51.
Bowman, Steven B. “Alexander and the Mysteries of India.” Journal of Indo-Judaic Studies 2 (1999): 71–111.
Bowman, Steven B., Sepher Yosippon: A Tenth-century History of Ancient Israel. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2023.
Cerquiglini, Bernard, Éloge de la variante: Histoire critique de la philologie. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1989.
Dönitz, Saskia. “Sefer Yosippon and the Septuagint.” Pages 223–234 in Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions: Studies in Their Use in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Edited by Nicholas de Lange, Cameron Boyd-Taylor, and Julia Krivoruchko. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.
Dönitz, Saskia. “Alexander the Great in Medieval Hebrew Traditions.” Pages 21–39 in A Companion to Alexander Literature in the Middle Ages. Edited by Z. David Zuwiyya. Leiden: Brill, 2011.
Dönitz, Saskia. “Historiography among Byzantine Jews: The Case of Sefer Yosippon.” Pages 951–968 in Jews in Byzantium: Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Dönitz, Saskia. Überlieferung und Rezeption des Sefer Yosippon. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.
Dönitz, Saskia. “Josephus Torn To Pieces: Fragments of Sefer Yosippon in Genizat Germania.” Pages 83–96 in Books Within Books: New Discoveries in Old Book Bindings. Edited by Andreas Lehnardt and Judith Olszowy-Schlanger. Leiden: Brill, 2014.
Dönitz, Saskia. “Josephus im jiddischen Gewand: die jiddische Übersetzung des Sefer Yosippon.” Aschkenas 25 (2015): 53–61.
Elizur, Benjamin. “Dating of the Rothschild Miscellany.” Tarbiz 65 (1997): 275–277.
Fishof, Iris, ed. The Rothschild Miscellany: Facsimile and Commentary. 2 Volumes. London: Facsimile Editions Ltd., 1989.
Flusser, David. “An ‘Alexander-Geste’ in a Parma MS.” Tarbiz 26 (1956/57): 165–184.
Flusser, David. Josippon: The Original Version MS Jerusalem 8” 41280 and Supplements. Edited by David Flusser. Jerusalem: Zalman Shazar Center for Jewish History, 1978.
Flusser, David. ספר יוסיפון. יוצא לאור סדור ומוגה על־פי כתבי־יד הלוויית מבוא ביאורים וחילופי גרסאות. 2 Volumes. Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1978/1980. English title: The Josippon [Josephus Gorionides]: Edited with Introduction, Commentary and Notes.
Gaster, Moses, ed. The Chronicles of Jerahmeel. London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1899 (reprint New York, 1970).
Golb, Norman and Omeljan Pritsak. Khazarian Documents of the Tenth Century. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1982.
Günzburg, David, ed. ספר יוסיפון כפי דפוס מנטובה קודם רמ לפק: מהדורת דוד בן נפתלי גינצבורג זל עם הקדמת אברהם כהנא. Berditschev, 1913.
Haverkamp, Eva. Hebräische Berichte über die Judenverfolgungen während des Ersten Kreuzzugs. Hannover: Hahn, 2005.
Hillgarth, Jocelyn N., ed. Readers and Books in Majorca 1229–1550, Volume 2. Paris: CNRS, 1992.
Hominer, Haim, ed. Josiphon of Joseph Ben Gorion ha-Cohen: Reprinted according to the complete Edition of Venice 5304 (1544) with Supplements from the Mantua Edition 5238–5240 (1478–80) and the Constantinople Edition 5270 (1510). 3rd Edition. Jerusalem, 1967. [Hebrew]
Hopkins, Simon. A Miscellany of Literary Pieces from the Cairo Genizah Collection: A Catalogue and Selection from the Taylor-Schechter Collection, Old Series Box A 45. Cambridge: University Library, 1978.
Jacobson, Howard. “Thoughts on the Chronicles of Jerahmeel: Ps-Philo’s Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum, and their Relationship.” Studia Philonica Annual 9 (1997): 239–263.
Kogman-Appel, Katrin. Catalan Maps and Jewish Books: The Intellectual Profile of Elisha ben Abraham Cresques (1325–1387). Turnhout: Brepols, 2020.
Kreisel, Howard, ed. R. Yehudah Le’on ben R. Mosheh Mosqoni Even ha-‘Ezer. Edited by Howard Kreisel. Beer Sheva: Ben Gorion University, 2021. [Hebrew]
Lehnardt, Andreas. Die hebräischen und aramäischen Einbandfragmente in deutschen Archiven, Bibliotheken und Sammlungen. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2021.
Lévi, Israel. “L’inventaire du mobilier et de la bibliothèque d’un médecin juif de Majorque au XIVe siècle.” REJ 39 (1899): 242–260.
Lévi, Israel. “Le manuscrit hébreu no. 24 de la bibliothèque du Baron Rothschild à Paris.” REJ 89 (1930): 281–292.
Lévi, Israel. “Jesus, Caligula et Claude dans une interpolation du Yosiphon.” REJ 91 (1931): 135–154.
Lévi, Israel. “L’histoire de Suzanne et les deux vieillards dans la littérature juive.” REJ 96 (1933): 157–171.
Mann, Jacob, Texts and Studies in Jewish History and Literature, Volume 1. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1931.
Marcus, Ivan G. “The Foundation Legend of Ashkenazic Judaism.” Pages 409–418 in Ḥesed ve-Emet: Studies in Honor of Ernest S. Frerichs. Edited by Jodie Magness and Seymour Gitin. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1998.
Marcus, Ivan G., Sefer Hasidim and the Ashkenazic Book in Medieval Europe. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018.
Neubauer, Adolf. “Yerahmeel ben Shelomoh.” JQR 11 (1899): 364–386.
Offenberg, Adriaan K. “The Chronology of Hebrew Printing at Mantua in the Fifteenth Century: A Re-Examination,” The Library 16 (1994): 298–315
Raspe, Lucia. “Ascher ha-Lewi und die Gründung des jüdischen Worms: Liturgiekommentar, Familiensinn und Geschichtsbewusstsein im mittelalterlichen Aschkenas.” Pages 133–144 in Memoria—Wege jüdischen Erinnerns: Festschrift für Michael Brocke zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Birgit E. Klein and Christiane E. Müller. Berlin: Metropol, 2005.
Reich, Rosalie, ed. Tales of Alexander the Macedonian. New York: Ktav Publ. House, 1972. [Hebrew]
Reiner, Jacob. “The English Josippon.” JQR 58 (1967): 126–142.
Richler, Benjamin. Hebrew Manuscripts in the Biblioteca Palatina in Parma: Catalogue. Jerusalem: Jewish National and University Library, 2001.
Richler, Benjamin, and Malachi Beit-Arié, eds. Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library: Catalogue. Vatican City: Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana, 2008.
Rosenthal, David. The Cairo Geniza Collection in Geneva. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2010. [Hebrew]
Schäfer, Peter, and Chaim Milikowsky. “Current Views on the Editing of the Rabbinic Texts of late Antiquity: Reflections on a Debate after Twenty Years.” Pages 79–88 in Rabbinic Texts and the History of Late-Roman Palestine. Edited by Martin Goodman and Philip Alexander. Oxford: The British Academy, 2010.
Sela, Shulamit, ed. The Arabic Josippon. 2 Volumes. Jerusalem, Tel Aviv: Yad Ben-Zvi, 2009. [Hebrew]
Shalev-Eyni, Sarit. “Martyrdom and Sexuality: The Case of an Eleventh-Century Piyyut for Hanukka and its Visual Interpretation in the Fifteenth Century.” Pages 133–165 in Conflict and Religious Conversation in Latin Christendom: Studies in Honour of Ora Limor. Edited by Israel J. Yuval and Ram Ben-Shalom. Brepols: Turnhout, 2014.
Sirat, Colette, and Malachi Beit-Arié, eds. Manuscrits médiévaux en caractères hébraïques portant des indications de date jusqu’à 1540. 3 Volumes. Jerusalem, 1972–1986.
Soloveitchik, Haym. “Halakha, Hermeneutics, and Martyrdom in Medieval Ashkenaz: (Part II of II).” JQR 94 (2004): 278–299.
Stein Kokin, Daniel. “The Josephan Renaissance: Flavius Josephus and His Writings in Italian Humanist Discourse.” Viator 47 (2016): 205–248.
Steinschneider, Moritz. Die hebræischen Handschriften der K. Hof- und Staatsbibliothek in Muenchen. Munich: Palm, 1895.
Steinschneider, Moritz. “Yehuda Mosconi.” Pages 536–574 in Moritz Steinschneider: Gesammelte Schriften. Edited by Heinrich Malter and Alexander Marx. Berlin, 1925.
Ta-Shma, Israel M. “The ‘Open Book’ in Medieval Hebrew Literature: the Problem of Authorized Editions.” Pages 17–24 in Artefact and Text: The Re-Creation of Jewish Literature in Medieval Hebrew Manuscripts. Edited by Philip S. Alexander and Alexander Samely. Manchester, The John Rylands Library, 1993.
Vehlow, Katja, ed. Abraham Ibn Daud’s Dorot ‘Olam (Generations of the Ages): A Critical Edition and Translation of Zikhron Divrey Romi, Divrey Malkhey Yisraʾel, and the Midrash on Zechariah. Leiden: Brill, 2013.
Vehlow, Katja. “Fascinated by Josephus: Early Modern Vernacular Readers and Ibn Daud’s Twelfth-Century Hebrew Epitome of Josippon.” The Sixteenth Century Journal 46 (2017): 413–435.
Vogelstein, Hermann, and Paul Rieger. Geschichte der Juden in Rom: 139 v. Chr.–1420 n. Chr. 1. Berlin: Mayer & Müller, 1896.
Wasserman, Gabriel. “Liturgical Poems of Ḥanukka from Europe: Critical Edition and Investigations.” PhD Diss. Yeshiva University, 2016.
Weinberg, Joanna. “Early Modern Jewish Readers of Josephus.” International Journal of the Classical Tradition 23 (2016): 275–289.
Weinberger, Leon J. Jewish Hymnography: A Literary History. London: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1998.
Weisz, M., Katalog der hebräischen Handschriften und Bücher in der Bibliothek des Prof. David Kaufmann. Frankfurt: Kauffmann, 1906.
Whealey, Alice. “Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum.” Pages 73–116 in Josephus und das Neue Testament: Wechselseitige Wahrnehmungen, Volume II. Edited by Christfried Böttrich, Jens Herzer, and Torsten Reiprich. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007.
Yassif, Eli. “The Hebrew Narrative Anthology in the Middle Ages.” Prooftexts 17 (1997): 153–175.
Yassif, Eli, ed. The Book of Memory: That is the Chronicles of Jerahme’el. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, Chaim Rosenberg School of Jewish Studies, 2001. [Hebrew]
Zeldes, Nadia. Reading Jewish History in the Renaissance: Christians, Jews, and the Hebrew Sefer Josippon. Lanham, MD: Lexington, 2020.
I thank the editors for their advice and help in improving this article in content and form. I am especially grateful to Carson Bay, who invited me to Bern on several occasions and shared with me his writings and thoughts. His arrival in Bern has reignited scholarly interest in Yosippon and elevated research on this seminal text to a much higher level over the past few years.
Bowman, “Yosippon and Jewish Nationalism,” 31.
Ta-Shma, “The ‘Open Book;’” Beit-Arié, “Transmission of Texts.”
Cf. the “fuzzy” character of Rabbinic or Hekhalot literature; see the discussion by Peter Schäfer and Chaim Milikowsky, “Current Views on the Editing of the Rabbinic Texts of late Antiquity,” and earlier portions of this longstanding debate. For medieval literature see Marcus, Sefer Hasidim and Ta-Shma, “The ‘Open Book;’” Beit-Arié, “Transmission of Texts.”
On the various additions at the end see below and the contribution by Andrea Schatz in this volume.
Flusser, Josippon [Josephus Gorionides]; hereafter cited as Flusser I (text of SY) and II (introduction).
This manuscript was also published in a facsimile edition; Flusser, Josippon. The Original Version.
Also as an early print: Mantua 1475.
Modern edition Hominer, Josiphon; see also Bowman, “Yosippon and Jewish Nationalism.”
The recently published translation of Yosippon by Steven Bowman into English is based on this edition: Bowman, Sepher Yosippon; the same goes for the German translation published in 2010: Börner-Klein, Josippon: Jüdische Geschichte vom Anfang der Welt.
He argued that these chapters existed in the original version of SY and were deleted afterwards because of chronological problems; see Flusser II, 47f. However, none of the early manuscripts has these chapters; see Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 39f. and below.
The same is true for the history of the Judeo-Arabic version of the book; see Sela, The Arabic Josippon.
Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption.
Flusser provided a stemma in the Facsimile publication of MS Jerusalem oct. 4120, 9 and in Flusser II, 53, which should be used with caution.
Cerquiglini, Eloge de la variante.
For a table of the interpolations and their distribution see Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 276–277. For some chapters, textual variants have also been taken into account; however, a thorough textual comparison still needs to be done.
See below.
Flusser only listed one, see Flusser II, 16–17.
Flusser, Josippon. The Original Version.
Fishof, Rothschild Miscellany, 181–215.
Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 44–45.
See Jacobson, “Thoughts on the Chronicles.”
Yassif, The Book of Memory.
Most of the Cairo Genizah fragments are available online either via the Ktiv-website or the Friedberg Genizah website.
Compare the discussion held by Shulamit Sela about the possibility that SY was actually produced in stages with a core comprised of the chapters on the Maccabees (similar to the Arabic Book of the Maccabees). In the course of time, according to this theory the text would have gradually grown by accruing further material before and after these chapters. Since Sela compared the Judaeo-Arabic fragments to Flusser’s text without considering its eclectic character, however, her theories are difficult to assess without a proper textual basis; for this discussion see Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, Chapter 3.4 and Sela, The Arabic Josippon.
See p. 180 below on the Ashkenazic Recension A.
I am indebted to Peter Lehnardt (in a private conversation, 24.03.2022) for the reference to this fragment.
For a discussion of MS Jerusalem oct. 4120, see below on Ashkenazic Recension A.
For a first attempt to identify fragments belonging to the same codex, see Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 39–44.
For the early circulation of SY’s manuscripts in Southern Italy, see the fascinating description of the robbery of a copy in a letter to Hasdai ibn Shaprut; Golb, Pritsak, Khazarian documents, 86–90; Mann, Texts and Studies I, 1–27.
The dating and details on the paleography I owe to Dr. Edna Engel from the IMHM in Jerusalem.
This description is a modified version of my division of the fragments in my 2013 book (Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption). Some new insights are based on conversations held with Peter Lehnardt in Jerusalem in March 2022.
Flusser named them each
Flusser named them each
Goitein, Mediterranean Society, 2.268 and 2.584n53.
For SY in the book lists of the Cairo Genizah, see Allony, The Jewish Library, index.
Rosenthal, The Cairo Geniza Collection, 118.
The first manuscript to include the Daniel story is Oxford, Heb. d. 11; see p. 189 below.
F 13461; Italy, 14th century; Richler, Hebrew Manuscripts in Parma, 146; Flusser, “Alexander-Geste;” see translation by Bowman, “Alexander and the Mysteries of India,” included now in his Sepher Yosippon.
The other one being the mentioned MS Parma, Biblioteca Palatina, ebr. 2457 (de Rossi 1087; Italy, 14th century), edited by Flusser in the appendix, 461–491; see also pp. 192–194 below in the discussion of Recension B.
Hopkins, A Miscellany of Literary Pieces, 109 (appendix A).
E.g. Cambridge, University Library, T-S NS 176.12 and T-S Misc. 28.21; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Heb. e. 30; see also Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 42–43.
A comparison of both versions can be found in the discussion of the Ashkenazic Recension A, section 3.2 below.
Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 44–45. For a different opinion see Soloveitchik, “Halakha, Hermeneutics, and Martyrdom (Part II),” 280.
Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 180–181.
Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 44; 47–48.
On the Esther story in SY, see Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 197–203, and Dönitz, “Sefer Yosippon and the Septuagint.”
It is also part of MS Vat. 52; see pp. 188–189 below.
Flusser II, 431; this is the version in MS Jerusalem oct. 4120, MS Israel Museum (Rothschild Miscellany), and New York JTS 3572. This version seems to be the same one as in MS Oxford Heb. d. 11, which does not belong to this group—see below.
For an English translation of both versions see Bowman, Sepher Yosippon, 392.
Ezek 25:14.
Isa 66:13.
Deut 30:4; Isa 11:12.
Zeph 3:20.
The number in square brackets refers to the number of the microfilm in the Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts. Available online: https://www.nli.org.il/he/manuscripts/NNL_ALEPH002582454/NLI#$FL26291834. For a description see Sirat, Beit-Arié, Manuscrits médiévaux en caractères hébraïques, vol. II, no. 11.
Flusser, Josippon. Colophon on fol. 119v.
IMHM Film No. 14292.
This is denied by Sirat and Beit-Arié in Manuscrits médiévaux en caractères hébraïques, vol. II, no. 11, due to the different script in MS Parma 2530. However, the Parma manuscript contains the Megillot (written in square script and vocalized), while here the text belongs to a secular genre (written in semicursive). So the copyist might have changed his style due to the different genres.
Weinberger, Jewish Hymnography, 146.
Vogelstein, Rieger, Geschichte der Juden in Rom, 2.379–382.
Fol. 42v; see also on fol. 43r:
Fol. 4v–5r; for the additional passage on Darius see Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 47–48.
www.nli.org.il/en/manuscripts/NNL_ALEPH000088390/NLI. Accessed July 12, 2022. The film lacks the image of fol. 73v, which includes the last lines of SY 89.
Available online on the Ktiv website in black and white, starts with page 226 in the pictures; https://www.nli.org.il/he/manuscripts/NNL_ALEPH000180153/NLI#$FL138279360 (accessed July 12, 2022). Some pictures of the manuscript are available in colour on the website of The Bezalel Narkiss Index of Jewish Art: https://cja.huji.ac.il/browser.php?mode=set&id=28. There are two different ways of numbering the folios. Here the folios are indicated by the modern counting added on the page below.
For a list of content see Lévi, “Le manuscrit hébreu” and the description in the Jerusalem Catalogue of the Institute for Microfilmed Hebrew Manuscripts, Film No. 32638.
See Bauer-Eberhardt, “Die Rothschild-Miscellanea.”
Fishof, ed., The Rothschild Miscellany; Beit-Arié, Makings of the Medieval Hebrew Book, 93–126. For the dating see also Elizur, “Dating of the Rothschild Miscellany.”
See fol. 167r; Beit-Arié, Makings of the Medieval Hebrew Book, 208–211.
Fol. 217r–218v. Davidson
On design and layout, see Beit-Arié, Makings of the Medieval Hebrew Book, 184. He assumes that this manuscript was designed after a model.
The reference to Gershom Meor ha-Golah is found on fol. 171r.
Fol. 262r–v (SY 47, l. 57); see Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 49. This passage is also included in MS Budapest Kaufman 355, on which see below.
Fol. 277v–278v; see Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 50–62. Flusser presents these passages at the end of his edition, thus showing awareness of the fact that this is a later interpolation, see Flusser I, 439–444. See also Lévi, “Jesus, Caligula et Claude;” Lévi, “Histoire de Suzanne.”
This text and its relation to SY has been recently examined thoroughly by Carson Bay in several articles, which completely renew our understanding of the relationship between the Latin source and the Jewish author of Yosippon. See Bay, “The ‘Maria Story,’” Bay, “The Jerusalem Temple and Jewish Identity,” and his contribution to this volume.
Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 56–57.
See the numerous publications on the Testimonium Flavianum, among others Whealey, “Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum;” Zeldes, Reading Jewish History, 83–85.
See Flusser I, 432–433, text B; Bonfil, History and Folklore, 235.
See Flusser I, 432–433.
See Marcus, “The Foundation Legend;” Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 266. For a further discussion of this passage see Andrea Schatz’s essay in this volume.
SY 40; fol. 249v. All translations made by the author.
It is not clear what this date refers to.
Flusser II, 4, 82–84; see also Bowman, “Dates in Sefer Josippon;” Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 9–11.
For description see Richler and Beit-Arié, Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library, 633; the manuscript is available online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Urb.ebr.52.
Flusser II, 10, 15f.
Starts at SY 2, l. 14 and ends at SY 89, l. 42.
See fol. 10v, 12v, 50r.
See below.
See below. Vatican Urb. 52 shares with the manuscripts of the Ashkenazic A group the missing lines of SY 3, ll. 40–47 (fol. 4v), which are included in the manuscripts of Recensions B and C. Vatican Urb. 52 also contains ll. 58–143 of SY 60, which are part of the Ashkenazic recension but are missing in all the other manuscripts.
This is also found in MS Vatican 408, MS Milano 67, and the print Mantua 1475 of Recension B. In the witnesses of Recension C the gap is even larger, lacking lines 136–190.
Flusser II, 15f. For an in-depth discussion of the Arabic translation of SY, see now Sela, The Arabic Josippon.
MS Vat. Urb. 52, fol. 12v. All translations are mine unless indicated otherwise.
No digitalization available; partial edition by Yassif, ed., Book of Memory, 127–128, 148–154, 231–312, which does not include the whole text of SY as contained in the manuscript. The edition omits SY 28–89. However, the manuscript does include the book as a whole. For this reason it is not clear why Nadia Zeldes speaks about Eleazar ben Asher ha-Levi using excerpts from SY; see Zeldes, Reading Jewish History, 27–28.
For a detailed description of the manuscript see Haverkamp, Hebräische Berichte über die Judenverfolgungen, 163–186.
Raspe, “Ascher ha-Lewi und die Gründung;” she argues that the manuscript served as a means of preserving family history.
For the content, see the table of contents in Yassif, ed., Book of Memory, 3–8. It was actually seen as a pendant to the Christian genre of universal history; see Yassif, “Hebrew Narrative Anthology.” It also contains the chronicles on the crusades by Eliezer bar Nathan and Ephraim of Bonn; Haverkamp, Hebräische Berichte, 163.
The Alexander romance is represented in a different version from the one that entered into SY as Interpolation A and B; it was edited by Reich, Tales of Alexander. On this version of the Alexander story see also Dönitz, “Alexander the Great in Medieval Hebrew Traditions,” 35–38.
Gaster, ed., The Chronicles of Jerahmeel. This is first indicated when Eleazar ben Asher notes:
The exact extent of this compilation is not clear. In his article, Howard Jacobson argues for a minimal version of this compilation; Jacobson, “Thoughts on the Chronicles.” Moses Gaster called the first 100 folio of MS Oxford Heb. d. 11 Sefer Yeraḥme’el.
See fol. 113r:
His poems are published in Neubauer, “Yerahmeel ben Shelomoh,” transmitted in MS Oxford Opp. 697/Neubauer 2079 [F 19364].
He also produced a version of Seder Olam, which starts with the destruction of the First Temple and ends with the Mishnah, presenting a list of Jewish priests, kings, and rabbis besides non-Jewish rulers; Yassif, ed., Book of Memory, 365–368 and 368–382. The text includes a description of the Greek and Latin translations of the Hebrew Bible; Yassif, ed., Book of Memory, 382. On the relation between this text and SY, see Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 216–223.
He translated parts of the Liber Antiquitatum Biblicarum by Ps-Philo; see Jacobson, “Thoughts on the Chronicles,” 250–263.
Yassif, ed., Book of Memory, 231–250.
This is corroborated by the fact that the Daniel story in SY has some parallels in the translations of the additions to the biblical Book of Daniel as they were presented by Yeraḥmeʾel; see Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 62f.
Dan 6; Dan 14 (addition to the Septuagint); see Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 62–65.
For text and translation of these parts, see Gaster, ed., Chronicles of Jerahmeel, 207–231.
For a discussion of this chapter, see Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 197–203.
Yassif, ed., Book of Memory, 271–281. For an English translation see Gaster, ed., Chronicles of Jerahmeel, 236–253.
Flusser I, 434f. (Oxford, Heb. d. 11, fol. 145v).
This passage is also contained in the Rothschild Miscellany; see above. For the text see Flusser I, 432–433, 435–437 and Oxford, Heb. d. 11, fol. 197r–199r.
Yassif, ed., Book of Memory, 127 and 148.
All the manuscripts also have the gap in SY 60, lacking ll. 58–143; see discussion of Oxford, Heb. d. 11.
For the inclusion of the first interpolation; see above on the Cairo Genizah fragments. For the Alexander interpolations see Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 75–90. For the Hebrew Alexander in general see Dönitz, “Alexander the Great” and the introduction in van Bekkum, ed., A Hebrew Alexander Romance.
Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 85–90; van Bekkum Hebrew Alexander Romance London, 27.
Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 85–87.
Flusser II.
This article does not provide an exhaustive discussion of the fragments and excerpts that exist from SY. However, for the discussion of Recension B, they are important because they illuminate the manuscript tradition of this recension, which is completely lacking in Flusser’s work.
Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption and Dönitz, “Josephus torn to Pieces.”
On the role of Joseph ben Gorion as alias of Flavius Josephus, see below on Recension C.
See Vehlow, ed., Abraham Ibn Daud’s Dorot ‘Olam.
See the discussion in Recension C; Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, Chapter 5.3. and Dönitz, “Josephus torn to pieces.”
Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 72–73.
Offenberg, “Chronology of Hebrew Printing.” For an online version of the Mantua print see https://www.nli.org.il/he/books/NNL_ALEPH001268325/NLI (accessed July 5, 2022). The book was later reprinted by Günzburg,
SY, Mantua 1475, 269.
See above on Oxford Heb. d. 11 and the discussion of the passage by Andrea Schatz in this volume.
Available online: https://digital.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/objects/8f11acfc-207f-42a9-89ce-78dccadb51a3 (accessed July 12, 2022).
Available online: https://www.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/view/bsb00039620?page=,1 (accessed July 12, 2022). Steinschneider, Die hebræischen Handschriften; Lehnardt, Die hebräischen und aramäischen Einbandfragmente, 638.
The search for Hebrew fragments that were reused as book bindings or covers was organized in the framework of a DFG-funded project called Genizat Germania supervised by Prof. Dr. Andreas Lehnardt (Johannes Gutenberg-University of Mainz). See now http://www.hebrewmanuscript.com (accessed May 14th, 2023).
For a more detailed discussion of these fragments, see Dönitz, “Josephus Torn To Pieces.” Another binding fragment containing SY was found in the Vatican Library: MS Vatican 617/1 [F 74201], Spain, 15th century. It has fragments of SY 49–50; see Richler and Beit-Arié, eds., Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library, 505.
Available online: https://www.nli.org.il/en/discover/manuscripts/hebrew-manuscripts/viewerpage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS&docid=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990001794800205171-1#$FL39031739; See Weisz, Katalog der hebräischen Handschriften, 113.
Available online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.ebr.408 (accessed July 4, 2022). For the description in the catalogue see Richler and Beit-Arié, Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library, 353–354.
The same scribe copied MSS Vat. ebr. 95 in 1438 (commentary on Job by Gersonides), Paris, BnF hébreu 196 in 1439 in Cortona (commentary on the Bible by David Qimhi; F 4179), and Parma 2445 (collection of philosophical and other works) in 1444.
Stein Kokin, “The Josephan Renaissance,” 231; Flusser II, 56.
Stein Kokin, “The Josephan Renaissance,” 207–210. On SY’s copy see 218, FN 68.
Stein Kokin, “The Josephan Renaissance,” 220f.; Zeldes, Reading Jewish History in the Renaissance, 79.
Vat. ebr. 408, fol. 94v–95r; see Flusser I, 439–440, ll. 1–28. For a discussion of the version in Vat. ebr. 408 see Stein Kokin, “The Josephan Renaissance,” 226.
Vat. ebr. 408, fol. 95r.
Rothschild Miscellany, fol. 278r; Budapest A 355, p. 158. In Milano I 67 there is a gap in the manuscript.
Stein Kokin, “The Josephan Renaissance,” 220f., 231f.; Zeldes, Reading Jewish History in the Renaissance, 80.
There is no description of this manuscript in the catalogue by Bernheimer, Codices Hebraici Bybliothecae Ambrosianae.
For the Yiddish translation, see Dönitz, “Josephus im jiddischen Gewand;” for the early English version see Reiner, “The English Josippon;” Vehlow, “Fascinated by Josephus.”
Hominer, ed, Josiphon; Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 91–102.
MS Paris 1280, fol. 1r–3v; MS Vatican Borg. 1, fol. 1–4; MS Milano H 70, fol. 1r–2v; Hominer, Josiphon, 34–40.
MS Paris 1280, fol. 2v.
See on Recension B above and the discussion below.
Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 97–100.
Zeldes, Reading Jewish History in the Renaissance. It was Azaria de Rossi who first differentiated between the two authors and their works in the middle of the 16th century; see Weinberg, “Early Modern Jewish Readers of Josephus.”
Hominer, Josiphon, Chapters 8, 35, 38, 43.
See the description of his travels in his introduction to the super-commentary on Ibn Ezra now in Kreisel, R. Yehudah Le’on ben R. Mosheh Mosqoni, translated by Bowman, Jews in Byzantium, 283–285.
Kreisel, R. Yehudah Le’on ben R. Mosheh Mosqoni.
See a preliminary analysis in Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 91–102, and in Dönitz, “Historiography among Byzantine Jews.” Recently, Katrin Kogman-Appel provided some further insights into his contemporary intellectual milieu in her latest book: Kogman-Appel, Catalan Maps and Jewish Books. For the library of Judah Mosqoni see Steinschneider, “Yehuda Mosconi;” Lévi, “L’inventaire;” Hillgarth, ed., Readers and Books, 434–441.
Vehlow, Abraham Ibn Daud’s Dorot ‘Olam (Generations of the Ages).
Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 235–239. Zeldes repeats the argument by Flusser, basing herself on the very same texts that I analysed; see Zeldes, Reading Jewish History in the Renaissance, 17–18.
Available online: https://www.nli.org.il/en/discover/manuscripts/hebrew-manuscripts/viewerpage?vid=MANUSCRIPTS&docid=PNX_MANUSCRIPTS990001319660205171 -1#$FL55482365 (accessed July 5, 2022); for a description see Beit-Arié, Sirat, Manuscrits médievaux en caracteres hébraiques I, no. 132 and https://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ark :/12148/cc5378x.
According to the colophon on fol. 185v; for the text see Beit-Arié, Sirat, Manuscrits médievaux, vol. I, no. 132.
MS Paris 1280, fol. 123v.
Available online: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Borg.ebr.1 (accessed July 5, 2022).
Richler and Beit-Arié, Hebrew Manuscripts in the Vatican Library, 516.
Milano, Ambrosiana H 70 Inf, fol. 69v.
For a discussion of these different versions of the reference to Jesus, see Stein Kokin, “Josephan Renaissance,” 227 note 115; Zeldes, Reading Jewish History, 83–85. See also the numerous publications on the Testimonium Flavianum, among others Whealey, “Josephus, Eusebius of Caesarea, and the Testimonium Flavianum.”
See Zeldes, Reading Jewish History; Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 50–65.
See also the rich Judaeo-Arabic tradition of SY; Sela, The Arabic Yosippon; Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, Chapter 3. For the Arabic tradition and its relevance for the Ethiopic translation, see the oeuvre of Yonatan Binyam and his contribution to this volume.
Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, Chapters 4 and 5.
That this is one of Yosippon’s major characteristics has recently be shown beautifully in the publications of Carson Bay on the adaptation of Yosippon’s source, Ps-Hegesippus, in the Hebrew text; see Bay, “The Maria Story,” Bay, “The Jerusalem Temple,” and chapter 11 of this volume.