Christian reception of Yosippon in the Middle Ages and Renaissance rested on three assumptions: that it was authored by Josephus, that it could serve to confirm the historicity of Christianity, and that it could be used as a tool in religious polemics against the Jews. One of the reasons medieval and Renaissance scholars sought out Yosippon was their interest in finding an interpolation that mentions Jesus and his followers, a Hebrew version of the so-called Testimonium Flavianum, a passage found in the eighteenth book of Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae that refers to Jesus as “messiah,” telling of his crucifixion and resurrection. Until its authenticity was questioned by modern scholars, this passage was considered proof of the truth of the Gospel and the historical existence of Jesus. It is extensively quoted by Christian authors from Late Antiquity up to modern times.1 Its presence in a Hebrew source deemed authentic by the Jews had particular value since it strengthened the Christian narrative. Yosippon’s account of the siege of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Second Temple was also of primary importance as a testimony given by an eye witness and thus proof that Christianity had superseded Judaism, demonstrating how divine punishment had been meted out to the Jews for rejecting Jesus. This interpretation of the events appears in Pseudo-Hegesippus’ De excidio Hierosolymitano and was later adopted by medieval authors, some aware of this source and some not.2
Christians were also interested in Yosippon for its opening chapter’s narrative, loosely based on Virgil’s Aeneid, depicting the fictitious biblical hero Zepho ben Eliphaz as the founder of Rome. Modern scholarship interprets this narrative as an attempt to create a Jewish historiography of the Roman Empire. Gerson Cohen emphasized the significance of the Edomite genealogy of Esau for portraying the Romans as descendants of the eternal rival of Jacob and shows how the concept is extended to represent the conflict between Judaism and Christianity. Joshua Holo argues that the story of Zepho, grandson of Esau, represents an ethnic conception of Roman history that connects the Edomites and the native Roman people of Kittite (i.e. Greek) stock. In his view, Yosippon creates a link between Edom-Rome-Christianity in the passage describing the persecutions of Gaius (Caligula), to be discussed presently. Ruth Nisse calls this reworking of the Aeneid “a medieval Jewish fantasy of Rome,” where Virgil’s imperial poem becomes an “epic” text of the Jewish Diaspora and represents a reversal of power on Edom’s terms.3 Christian tradition, however, appropriates the identity of Jacob-Israel while casting the Jews as Edom, interpreting the biblical story of the younger brother superseding and replacing the elder, a cornerstone of Christian belief.4 But, as will be shown in following pages, during the later Middle-Ages and the Renaissance, the myth of Zepho loses its original historical intent and serves to create founding myths that fulfil another purpose: confirming and validating Jewish presence in Christian Europe by attributing the founding of cities and lands to biblical figures.5
Lastly, Christian interest in Yosippon manifested itself in translations of the text into European languages. The early translations represent a selective use of Yosippon adapted to suit certain purposes, whether by highlighting its value as historical chivalric literature, or by pointing out weaknesses and anachronisms in the text.
1 The Quest for the Testimonium
The earliest reference to Sefer Yosippon in a Latin medieval source is found in De principis instructione liber (Book of the Instruction of the Prince) by Gerald of Wales (ca. 1146–ca. 1223).6 Gerald’s work reflects the intellectual revival of the High Middle Ages and the renewed interest in classical works that prompted Christian scholars to seek information regarding the life of Jesus and the beginnings of Christianity in historical narratives written (or thought to have been written) during the lifetime of Jesus and the first apostles.7 In this treatise, Gerald of Wales gives an account of the advent of Christianity during the rule of Emperor Tiberius, quoting the passage known as Testimonium Flavianum. Gerald adds that “The great malice and obstinate faithlessness of the Jews is made quite clear by the fact that they keep the book of their great historian [i.e. in Hebrew] among themselves and deem it to be authentic, with the sole exception of the testimony about Christ, which they do not accept.”8
In his chronicle, Gerald included the story of Robert of Cricklade, Prior of Sr. Frideswide, as proof that the Jews refuse to accept even the truth recorded in their own books. Prior Robert is described as “erudite, well-read in the Scriptures, and a man not ignorant of the Hebrew language.” Prior Robert is probably the correspondent of the Sicilian scholar, Henry Aristippus, the Latin translator of Plato’s Phaedo. In a letter dated 1160, Aristippus tells an English friend named Roboratus, identified by modern scholarship as Robert of Cricklade,9 about the treasures of Sicilian libraries. If this identification is correct, Prior Robert could have learned about the existence of Sefer Yosippon during his sojourn in Italy. In any event, the Prior decided to collect as many manuscripts of Yosippon as he could find in England, checking them for the presence of the passage mentioning Jesus and early Christians. In only two manuscripts, per Gerald, “he found this testimony to Christ intact and written in the logical place, but it appeared as though it had been recently erased.”10 Gerald deemed this finding incontestable proof of the perfidy of the Jews. Ruth Nisse discusses this text and argues that Gerald of Wales’ narrative reveals the contestation between Jews and Christians over the authenticity and cultural significance of ancient post-biblical writings, as well as the Bible itself.11 But beyond the story’s significance in inter-religious polemics, this testimony shows that, in the twelfth century, Christian scholars already knew about the Hebrew Yosippon, and that the interpolation about Jesus was already in place by that time.12 Some of these interpolations are pejorative. Had they come to Prior Robert’s attention, Gerald would have pounced on them as proof of the wickedness of the Jews. What he probably found is something close to the following:
And in those days, there were in Judea controversies and quarrels between the Pharisees and the lawless (pariẓim) of our people who were following Yeshua ben Joseph, who performed great miracles in Israel until he was defeated by the Pharisees and was hanged on a tree.13
Gerald (or Prior Robert) claimed that in some manuscripts the Jews erased or censored the story, saying “it had been missing for a long time; it appeared as though it had never been there.”14 But these were clearly texts that had survived without the intervention of the anonymous interpolator.
During the Renaissance, the Testimonium was again sought out by Christian scholars. Count Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494) mentions it a letter dated 10 November 1486, written in response to questions addressed to him by an anonymous friend. From the answers, we can infer that this friend asked Pico whether or not Sefer Yosippon was reliable. The text of the letter has been recently published in its entirety, along with a translation into Italian, by Giacomo Corazzol.15 Corazzol identifies the anonymous friend as Marsilio Ficino (1433–1499), known for his works on Christian theology, particularly his Vera religio (On the True Religion).16 Pico’s response dismisses Yosippon as “not the right Josephus” and clearly refers to the Testimonium:
Regarding your question about Josephus, know that the Jews do not have the right Josephus,17 only a shorter epitome of Josephus, in which there are many inventions, and one can read there about the ten tribes who did not return home after the Babylonian captivity, and these are known spurious stories. … I know that there is a passage about Christ in the Greek Josephus, and there he is mentioned in a trustworthy honourable [manner], but I cannot ascertain that this [passage] is identical with what can be read in Latin codices without consulting the Greek version.18
Pico was therefore aware of the existence of the Hebrew Sefer Yosippon and knew that it was not one of Josephus’ works but a shorter compilation. It is interesting to note that Pico’s description of the book is strikingly similar to that of the Dominican Raymond Martini in his thirteenth-century polemical work Pugio fidei (Dagger of Faith), to be discussed presently. For comparison’s sake, it should be noted that Martini referred to Yosippon as “Josephon abbreviator Josephi.”19 But Pico, who knew about the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus’ Antiquitates, believed that it was not present in Yosippon. In his article, Corazzol suggests that his information on Yosippon came from the Sicilian convert Flavius Mithridates, who was close to Pico in 1486, when the above-cited letter was written.20 This conjecture corresponds to Daniel Stein Kokin’s suggestion that Pico never read the book and relied on other informants, who told him about its contents.21 But to return to Pico’s response to his friend “regarding your question about Josephus,” we can infer that the friend wished to know if the Josephus of the Jews, namely Yosippon, also mentioned Jesus. Pico, apparently without having read the book, assured his friend that there was no such passage there. It can, therefore, be argued that Pico, or rather his informant, read a version that lacked the interpolation. But Pico’s puzzling claim that Yosippon includes stories about the Ten Lost Tribes is obviously spurious and seems to support Stein Kokin’s argument for his lack of familiarity with the text.22
Pico’s correspondent, presumably Marsilio Ficino, also sought the truths revealed in ancient Jewish writings.23 Ficino’s reference to the Hebrew Yosippon appears as an annotation in a manuscript containing the Latin version of the New Testament. Ficino copied the passage known as the Testimonium Flavianum from Josephus’ Antiquitates into the manuscript and added his own note: “The Jews affirm [moreover] that in the Hebrew text of Josephus, Christ is accorded praises of great import apart from the resurrection” (Ebrei affirmat [insuper] testu Iosiphi ebraico esse superiores Christi laudes praeter resurrectionem).24 If Pico’s correspondent is, in fact, Ficino, as identified by Corazzol, his answer becomes clear: “Regarding your question about Josephus, know that the Jews do not have the right Josephus.” In other words, what you are looking for—the passage praising Christ—is not found in the Josephus of the Jews.
Gianozzo Manetti (1396–1459) was particularly interested in the role played by Judaism in the origins of monotheistic religion and the history of early Christianity. He wrote the well-known works Apologeticus25 and Adversus Judeos et gentes (Against the Jews and the Gentiles).26 In 1444, Manetti commissioned a copy of Sefer Yosippon from the Jew Elijah ha-Melamed of Fano, which has survived to this day.27 However, there is no evidence that Manetti ever cited Yosippon in his writings. His Adversus Judeos et gentes is a historical narrative based on the Bible and the New Testament, complemented by numerous non-biblical sources such as Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae, Virgil’s Aeneid, Ovid’s Metamorphoses, Cicero’s On the Nature of the Gods, and Lactantius’ Divine Institutes, to name a few.28 Manetti could easily have cited Yosippon in this work, written between 1456 and 1459, long after he had acquired the manuscript. He does not. Yet Josephus’ Antiquitates is frequently cited. In a recent article, Stein Kokin notes this omission and concludes that Manetti does not “ever even appear to mention the former text [SY] explicitly.” Stein Kokin also wonders why Manetti never made use of the Testimonium Flavianum (see above), or why he did not use the relevant passages on Jesus found in some versions of Yosippon.29 If Manetti commissioned the copy of Yosippon only because he hoped to find there a passage on Jesus rather than to use it as a historical source, he was probably disappointed when he read the following phrase that depicts Jesus and his followers in a rather pejorative manner: “and then all the lawless [pariẓim] woke up to confound our people [paraphrase of Daniel 11:14] to do as every man pleased [Judges 17:6], and they changed the Torah’s meaning.”30
2 Jewish History and the Fall of Jerusalem
A more sophisticated reception of Yosippon is found in Raymond Martini’s polemical work Pugio fidei adversus Mauros et Iudaeos (Dagger of Faith against the Muslims and the Jews), completed around 1278. Martini’s use of Jewish sources in Hebrew and Aramaic has been the subject of extensive study, and yet his references to the Hebrew Yosippon remain largely unexplored. The Pugio fidei survived in several manuscripts but it is best known in Carpzov’s seventeenth-century printed edition,31 which is not identical to the medieval manuscripts and is therefore less applicable to the study of Yosippon’s reception in the Middle Ages. Recent studies have suggested that the thirteenth-century Saint Geneviève manuscript is an autograph, in which case it represents the most immediate reception of the Hebrew text by Martini.32 In fact, not all medieval manuscripts of Pugio fidei have the Hebrew citations; the Toulouse copy, for example, includes citations from Yosippon only in Latin translation.33
Most citations of Yosippon in the Sainte Geneviève manuscript are added in Hebrew characters in the margins of the text, not always accompanied by Latin translation. Martini usually precedes each cited passage with
ויתר דבריו הלא הם כתובים על ספר מלכי מדי ופרס ועל ספר יוסף בן גוריון הוא יוספוס אשר הגלה אותו מירושלים טיטוס בן אספסינוס ועל ספר מלכי רומיים.
The rest is written in the book of the kings of Media and Persia and in the book of Joseph ben Gorion, who is Josephus, who was exiled from Jerusalem by Titus, son of Vespasian, and in the annals of the Roman kings.34
Although Martini identifies Yosippon with Josephus, “who was exiled,” he observes that the Hebrew Yosippon is a shorter work, a concise version of Josephus’ works, describing the author as “Josephon, the abbreviator of Josephus” (Josephon abbreviator Josephi).35 Interestingly, Martini never quotes directly from the Josephan texts, probably because his work sets out to prove the errors of the Jews by using only the texts they themselves read, in Hebrew and in Aramaic.
Numerous citations from Yosippon are concerned with the history of the Second Temple Period. Martini put particular emphasis on descriptions of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the Temple, such as the following:
אמר יוספון אמר יוסף בן גוריון ויגש טיטוס להלחם בחומות ירושלים וכו׳ ורבים מן היהודים היו משליכים את המתים אל הבורות ונופלים עמהם שם בעודם חיים.
So said Yosippon, said Joseph son of Gorion, and Titus came and attacked the walls of Jerusalem and many of the Jews were throwing their dead to the pits and falling in with them while still living.36
Martini’s choices are derived from his avowed purpose, which is to use texts and arguments from the Jews’ own literature in order to refute their beliefs and demonstrate their errors. The detailed descriptions of the Fall of Jerusalem fit in with the Christian tradition that interprets it as divine retribution for the Jews’ rejection of Jesus. Other lengthy passages concern the stories of Cyrus, whose figure Martini associates with the question of the messiah’s identity. They are added on the margins of the main text as exegesis on the prophecy, “Thus said the Lord to Cyrus, His anointed one” (Isa 45:1).37 Martini used Yosippon in order to turn its testimony against the Jews in the same way he used other Jewish writings in the Pugio fidei.
In his seminal study, Flusser determined that Sefer Yosippon has three main versions, or redactions—A, B, and C—with A the earliest and C the latest and most elaborate. In her study on the reception of Yosippon by the Jews, Saskia Dönitz identifies two more sub-variants for version A and offers a detailed description of all redactions.38 A careful examination of Yosippon citations in Pugio fidei can be used to determine which redaction was used by Martini. Comparing Martini’s rendition of the story of King Agrippa II in version A (published by Flusser) with the rendition in version C offers a telling example. The Yosippon narrative is a reworking of Josephus’ Antiquitates Judaicae and a passage from his Vita. The same story appears also in Bellum Judaicum and there is a version of it in De excidio as well, the latter comprising the source of Yosippon’s Recension A.39 By conflating two narratives, Martini mistakenly portrays the king as a cruel villain who was finally defeated by Roman forces:
Martini may have read De excidio, but the version of this story he recycles in Pugio fidei is not adapted from that source. In fact, it is almost identical to the Yosippon text found in MS Borgiana ebr. 1, which represents redaction C,41 proof that this redaction or an even earlier version of it was extant in the thirteenth century. Flusser suggested that in this section, the name of Jesus was replaced by the name of Eleazar, who is denoted as the prince of the renegades. This interpretation is more or less accepted by Holo, who also draws attention to a possible substitution of Edom for Aram in this passage.42 However, this “replacement” occurs already in De excidio, and this was the source of the story’s details, rather than there being there an intentional substitution by Yosippon’s author, or a later one dictated by an attempt at censorship. Further examination of the excerpts and a comparison with extant manuscripts will surely shed more light on the version used by Martini, but a fuller study of the Yosippon excerpts in Pugio fidei merits a larger project.
3 Zepho, Founder of Rome and Other European Cities
Sefer Yosippon appears in a roundabout way in the Dominican Pietro Ranzano’s history of Palermo, Delle origini e vicende di Palermo, written in 1470.43 Born in Palermo, Pietro Ranzano (1428–1492) joined the Dominican order and later became Provincial of the Dominicans in Sicily. He enjoyed an illustrious career as scholar, diplomat, and historian, ending his life as bishop of Lucera in southern Italy.44
In his history, Ranzano tells about his discovery of an ancient “Chaldean” inscription he saw on a tower in Palermo, which included the following statement:
He who commands this tower is Sepha (Zepho) son of Eliphaz, who was the son of Esau brother of Jacob, son of Isaac, son of Abraham.45
The genuine inscription found on the tower in Palermo was written in Arabic characters and lacked any reference to Zepho or the Sefer Yosippon.46 But Ranzano’s interpretation is clearly based on the myth of Zepho ben Eliphaz, which is found in all complete versions of the Sefer Yosippon.47 This myth enjoyed wide circulation among Jewish scholars of the Renaissance period, who by turn attributed to Zepho the founding of a European city in addition to Rome (Milan, Genoa, Palermo, Paris).48 Here it is used in a Christian narrative, but clearly inspired by Jewish intermediaries who “helped” interpret the mysterious inscription. Although Ranzano does not name Yosippon explicitly, he tells of a very old Hebrew book he was shown by a Jew of Palermo named Isaac Guglielmo. The book was probably Yosippon, the main source for the myth of Zepho.
This reading, attributing the founding of Palermo to Zepho, is completely spurious, and further study enabled scholars to reconstruct most of the original text, which was actually in Arabic script. It contained Quranic verses and a date: 331 to the Hegirah (942 CE).49 The biblical names of Sepha (i.e., Zepho), Eliphaz, and Esau, however, do not appear in any of the Arabic transcriptions, leading to the inescapable conclusion that the reading offered by Ranzano was a forgery. The importance of Ranzano’s story lies mainly in the role played by Yosippon in the false interpretation of the inscription. In response to his inquiries, the Jews of Palermo told Ranzano: “There is a very ancient Hebrew book that has survived to the present in which their ancestors described something similar.”50 At that point, Ranzano recounts his visit to the home of a Jew, where he was shown the ancient book:
A certain Jew, of the Pisan nation and an inhabitant of Palermo, named Isaac Guglielmo, invited me to his home on several occasions and showed me a book in which everything we have talked about had been written; and after having heard the reading of the inscription in Hebrew he [the Jew] translated it into the vernacular.51
This story indicates that the Jews of Palermo were familiar with the contents of Yosippon and, perhaps by playing on Ranzano’s ignorance of the Arabic script, they dared offer a false interpretation to the inscription incised on the stones of the old tower. The fact that Yosippon contains the myth of Zepho as founder of Rome may explain the work’s importance in this context. Even before discussing the inscription in his narrative on the origins of Palermo, Ranzano draws parallels between Palermo and Rome. Just as Rome was called “the city” (urbs), said Ranzano, Palermo was named the “happy city” (urbs felix), the only other city in the world to bear the designation urbs.52 The supposed appearance of the biblical figure of Zepho in the inscription allowed Ranzano to calculate the age of the settlement of Palermo and prove that it existed for at least 3,350 years, which would place it on par with Rome.53
4 Translations of Yosippon
One more facet of Sefer Yosippon’s reception by Christians is its translation into European languages. The earliest translations were made into Romance/Old Castilian rather than Latin. A manuscript formerly believed to be an Old Castilian translation of Josephus’ Antiquitates proved to be a translation of Yosippon.54 The presence of a passage describing the martyrdom of Anna (Hannah)55 and her seven sons allows us to determine that this was indeed a translation of Yosippon, probably dating from the fifteenth century. The story, which appears in Chapter 9 of the manuscript, begins as follows:
[E]n estos dias vino el rey Antioco a Jehrusalem por atormentar e aflegir al pueblo de Israel, porque non se inclinavan a su imagen. E mandó prender una mugier, que llamavan Ana, e a siete sus fijos.
And in those days King Antiochus came to Jerusalem to torment and afflict the people of Israel for they were not prostrating themselves in front of his image. And he gave orders to arrest a woman called Ana and her seven sons.56
The narrative shows that the Castilian manuscript is indeed a translation of one of the versions of the Yosippon. As it gives the mother’s name as Hannah, it must belong to either Redaction B or C, or something in between. However, definite identification awaits further study.
The Romance translation of Yosippon seems incomplete because it lacks the opening chapters that list the different nations existing in the author’s times and the history of Italy that includes the myth of Zepho as founder of Rome. Could this omission in the Spanish translation indicate that it was based on a very early version of Yosippon that lacked these chapters? In her study of the Arabic Yosippon, Shulamit Sela questions the existence of Chapters 1 and 2 in the earliest versions of the book. In her view, the Arabic version represents the earliest or even the original version of Yosippon, whereas the first two chapters in the Hebrew text are later additions. Dönitz, nevertheless, argues that this conclusion cannot be clearly deduced from Sela’s study.57 At any rate, the omission of the first chapters cannot be used to prove that the translation was based on such an early version, whether Hebrew or Arabic. Moreover, the translation gives the martyr mother the name Ana (Hannah) and this indicates, in my opinion, that a later version was used.
Now, the reasons for this translation can be gleaned from the translator’s prologue that emphasizes the points of interest for his potential audience:
In this book there are descriptions of the battles led by the priests of the Holy Temple (casa sancta) and by the Maccabees and afterwards by those who named themselves kings of Judea … In this book one encounters the battles of the kings of Persia and Media with the house of Judea, and the battles of the house of Judea with other nations, until the coming of Titus, son of Vespasian, who, because of the sins of Israel, destroyed the Holy Temple.58
The translator may have intentionally selected only those parts and omitted others. However, forming any theories regarding the original text that served the translator must await further study.
Yosippon was finally translated into Latin by the German Sebastian Münster (1488–1552). Münster’s Iosephus hebraicus diu desideratus et nunc ex Constantinopolitano exemplari iuxta Hebraismum, printed in Basel in 1541, is the first Latin translation, but again it is an incomplete one. Since Münster was convinced that the first chapters of Yosippon were a later addition and could not have been authored by Josephus, he decided to omit them altogether from both the Hebrew text he published and from the Latin translation. Thus, Münster’s edition begins with Yosippon’s rendition of the book of Daniel and has a different arrangement of chapters than the Constantinople printed edition on which he relied.59 Unwittingly, Münster seems to have chosen to produce a version that arguably represented the arrangement found in the earliest versions of SY. This is ironic, given that it is precisely these chapters (4–6) that appear to be missing from the earliest versions of SY, as per Dönitz’s 2009 article on Sefer Yosippon and the Greek Bible.60 At any rate, his preface lists his doubts about the book’s authorship:
It is clear, honest reader, from the very beginning of this book that one has to investigate whether or not this book of the Hebrew Joseph was written by the same Josephus Flavius; if the error is in the name, or if there was another [Joseph], if it was composed by the Hebrews in the Hebrew [language], or as it is said in the Latin version—which was translated many times by very learned men—that it was written by him for the Gentiles in the Greek language. And indeed, most scholars agree that Josephus did not write in Hebrew, but in Greek and some even argue that Josephus did not know Hebrew. That he wrote in Greek is attested to in the prologue to the Jewish War, and nowadays there are quite a number of books written by him in Greek that Rufinus [of Aquilea]61 long ago translated into Latin. Many offer arguments for the idea that he did not write in Hebrew.62
Münster was the first Christian scholar who questioned the identification of Yosippon’s author and the text’s authenticity. In the end, however, he upheld the traditional view that Josephus authored the Hebrew Yosippon, and chose to explain away the anachronisms and fanciful narratives as later interpolations:
To those that refer to the nations who made their appearance in the world long after Josephus’s times, that is the Franks, the Goths, the Lombards, the Bulgars, etc., … we dare suggest the following, that from the very beginning they were added to that author, and that many [of the stories contained therein] are fictitious (fabulosa).63
The Latin translation, albeit an abbreviated version of the original text, allowed Christian scholars to read Yosippon, compare versions, and discuss the authenticity of the text. Moreover, Münster’s objections came to the attention of later Christian (and Jewish) scholars such as Joseph Justus Scaliger (1540–1609) and Isaac Casaubon (1559–1614), leading them to conclude that Yosippon was in fact an original medieval compilation rather than the Hebrew version of Flavius Josephus’ works.64
5 Conclusion
Christian interest in Yosippon was typically motivated by the need to confirm certain basic tenets of belief such as the historicity of Jesus, the historical supersessionism of Judaism by Christianity, and confirmation of the truth found in the Jews’ ancient writings, the Hebraica veritas, a notion expounded by Renaissance scholars. Even though Christian authors considered Yosippon the original version of Josephus’ works, they were well aware that it was a shorter compilation. Some of them, like Gerald of Wales, thought that the Jews censored the text, intentionally omitting the passages on Jesus; much later, Giovanni Pico della Mirandola apparently suspected the same and dismissed its importance. And yet, Martini’s Pugio fidei offers the most sophisticated use of Yosippon by a Christian, so far as we know at present. Beyond enriching our understanding of the Christian use of Hebrew sources, further examination of Yosippon texts cited or translated by Christian authors may reveal unknown versions or redactions of the text, as shown by the excerpts in the Pugio fidei and the Castilian translation. To conclude, the study of Christian reception of Yosippon is still in its early stages, and further examination of the works may provide a fuller picture of the uses made of the text, interpretations, censored passages, and more.
Bibliography
Manuscripts
Budapest, Ms. 355
Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, Ric. 426, c. 2r
Jerusalem, Ms. Rothschild 24
Palermo, Bcp, 3 Qq B 70.120
Paris, Ms. BnF 1280
Paris, Sainte Geneviève Library, MS 1405
Santander, Ms. Biblioteca Menéndez Pelayo, M–54
Toulouse, Pugio fidei contra judaeos et sarracenos Martin, Raymond. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10560110p/f7.item. Accessed 10 October 2021.
Vatican, Ms. BAV, Borgiana ebr. 1
Vatican, Ms. BAV, ebr. 408
Printed Works
Bartolucci, Guido. Vera religio: Marsilio Ficino e la tradizione ebraica.; Turin: Paidea, 2017.
Bobichon, Philippe. “Le manuscrit latin de la bibliothèque Sainte Geneviève (Paris). Autographe et œuvre d’un converti.” Pages 39–102 in Ramon Martí’s Pugio Fidei. Studies and Texts. Edited by Görge K. Hasselhoff, and Alexander Fidora. Santa Coloma de Queralt: Obrador Edèndum, 2017.
Bobichon, Philippe. “Quotations, Translations, and Uses of Jewish Texts in Ramon Martí’s Pugio fidei.” Pages 267–293 in The Late Medieval Hebrew Book in the Western Mediterranean: Hebrew Manuscripts and Incunabula in Context. Edited by Javier del Barco. Leiden: Brill, 2015.
Carleton Paget, James. “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity.” JTS 52 (2001): 539–624.
Celenza, Christopher S. “Marsilio Ficino.” in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2017 Edition). Edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2017/entries/ficino. Accessed 21 October 2021.
Chazan, Robert. Daggers of Faith: Thirteenth-century Christian Missionizing and Jewish Response. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1989.
Cohen, Gerson D., “Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought.” Pages 19–48 in Jewish Medieval and Renaissance Studies. Edited by Alexander Altmann. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967.
Cohen, Jeremy. Living Letters of the Law; Ideas of the Jew in Medieval Christianity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1999.
Coniglione, Matteo A. La provincia domenicana di Sicilia. Catania: Strano Francesco, 1937.
Corazzol, Giacomo. “‘Chiunque tu sia, sarai nostro amico.’ G. Pico della Mirandola—amico ignoto: carteggio (Autunno 1486—Primavera 1487).” Materia Giudaica 23 (2018): 429–457.
Dönitz, Saskia. Überlieferung und Rezeption des Sefer Yosippon. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.
Dönitz, Saskia. “Sefer Yosippon and the Greek Bible.” Pages 223–234 in Jewish Reception of Greek Bible Versions. Edited by Nicholas de Lange, Julia G. Krivoruchko and Cameron Boyd-Taylor. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.
Edelheit, Amos. Ficino, Pico, and Savonarola: The Evolution of Humanist Theology, 1461/2–1498. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Feldman, Louis H. “On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum Attributed to Josephus.” Pages 11–30 in New Perspectives on Jewish-Christian Relations: In Honor of David Berger. Edited by Elisheva Carlebach and Jacob J. Schacter. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Figliuolo, Bruno.“Ranzano, Pietro.” In Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, Volume 86 (2016). https://www.treccani.it/enciclopedia/pietro-ranzano_%28Dizionario-Biografico%29. Accessed October 3, 2018.
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.
Forsythe, Gary. A Critical History of Early Rome: From Prehistory to the First Punic War. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005.
Fubini, Giorgio. “L’ebraismo nei riflessi della cultura umanistica: Leonardo Bruni, Giannozzo Manetti, Annio da Viterbo.” Medioevo e Rinascimento 2 (1988): 283–324.
Garin, Eugenio. “L’umanesimo italiano e la cultura ebraica.” Pages 359–383 in Gli ebrei in Italia. Edited by Carlo Vivanti. Turin: Einaudi, 1996–1997.
Gerald of Wales [Giraldus Cambrensis]. “De principis instructione liber.” In Giraldi Cambrensis Opera, Volume 8. Edited by George F. Warner. London, 1891 (reprint, 1964).
Grafton, Anthony. Joseph Scaliger: A Study in the History of Classical Scholarship. 2 Volumes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1993.
Grafton, Anthony, and Noel Swerdlow. “Technical Chronology and Astrological History in Varro, Censorinus, and Others.” CQ 35 (1985): 454–465.
Grafton, Anthony and Joanna Weinberg. I Have Always Loved the Holy Tongue: Isaac Casaubon, the Jews, and a Forgotten Chapter in Renaissance Scholarship. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 2011.
Gutiérrez García, Santiago. “Estudio lingüístico de un romanceamiento castellano: el Yosipón de la Biblioteca Menéndez Pelayo (Ms. M–54).” Verba 34 (2007): 259–284.
Gutiérrez García, Santiago. “La reescritura de la historia del segundo templo en la Castilla del siglo XV: el Yosippon castellano como ejemplo de pragmática de la literatura medieval.” Pages 183–200 in Estudios sobre la pragmatica de la literatura medieval. Edited by Gemma Avenoza, Merixell Sim, and M. Lourdes Soriano Robles. Valencia: University of Valencia, 2017.
Hata, Gohei. “The Use and Misuse of Josephus in Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History.” Pages 91–102 in Studies in Josephus and the Varieties of Ancient Judaism: Louis Feldman Jubilee Volume. Edited by Louis Feldman, Shaye J.D. Cohen, and Joshua Schwartz. Leiden: Brill, 2007.
Holo, Joshua. “Byzantine-Jewish Ethnography.” Pages 924–925 in Jews in Byzantium. Dialectics of Minority and Majority Cultures. Edited by Robert Bonfil, Oded Irshai, Guy Stroumsa, and Rina Talgam. Leiden: Brill, 2012.
Houben, Hubert. Roger II of Sicily. A Ruler between East and West. Translated by Graham Loud and Diane Milburn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.
Idel, Moshe. “Prisca Theologia in Marsilio Ficino and in Some Jewish Treatments.” Pages 137–178 in Marsilio Ficino: His Theology, His Philosophy, His Legacy. Edited by Michael J. B. Allen and Valery Rees, with Martin Davies. Leiden: Brill, 2002.
Inowlocki, Sabrina. “Josephus and Patristic Literature.” Pages 356–367 in A Companion to Josephus. Edited by Honora H. Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016.
Josephus, Jewish Antiquities. Translated by Ralph Marcus et al. 10 Volumes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980.
Kattan Gribetz, Sarit. “Hanged and Crucified: The Book of Esther and Toledot Yeshu.” Pages 159–180 in Toledot Yeshu (“The Life Story of Jesus”) Revisited: A Princeton Conference. Edited by Peter Schäfer, Michael Meerson, and Yaacov Deutsch. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011.
Leoni, Tommaso. “The Text of the Josephan Corpus: Principal Greek Manuscripts, Ancient Latin Translations, and the Indirect Tradition.” Pages 307–321 in A Companion to Josephus. Edited by Honora H. Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016.
Leoni, Tommaso. “The Text of Josephus’s Works: an Overview.” JSJ 40 (2009): 149–184.
Leoni, Tommaso. “Translations and Adaptations of Josephus’s Writings in Antiquity and the Middle Ages.” Rivista di antichità 16 (2006): 481–492.
Levenson, David B. and Thomas R. Martin. “The Ancient Latin Translations of Josephus.” Pages 322–344 in A Companion to Josephus. Edited by Honora H. Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016.
Manetti, Gianozzo. A Translator’s Defense. Edited by Myron McShane. Translated by Mark Young. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016.
Manetti, Gianozzo. Against the Jews and the Gentiles. Books 1–IV. Edited by Stefano Baldassarri and Daniela Pagliara. Translated by David Marsh. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017.
Martines, Marco Antonio. De situ Siciliae et insularum adjacentium libri tres. 1578 (Ms. Palermo, Biblioteca comunale, Bcp, 3 Qq B 70.120).
Martinii, Raimundus. Pugio fidei adversus mauros et judaeos. Edited by Johann Benedict Carpzov. Leipzig: Lanckisi, 1687.
Martinii, Raimundus. Pugio fidei adversus mauros et judaeos. Edited by Johann Benedict Carpzov. Farnborough, Hants: Gregg, 1967.
Mason, Steve. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 9: Life of Josephus. Leiden: Brill, 2001.
Mason, Steve. Flavius Josephus: Translation and Commentary, Volume 1b: Judean War 2. Leiden: Brill, 2008.
Merchavia, Chen. “Pugio Fidei: An Index of Citations.” Pages 203–234 in Exile and Diaspora: Studies in the History of the Jewish People Presented to Professor Haim Beinart on the Occasion of His Seventieth Birthday. Edited by Aharon Mirsky, Avraham Grossman, and Yosef Kaplan. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute, 1988.
Merchavia, Chen. “The Hebrew Versions of ‘Pugio fidei’ in the Saint Geneviève Manuscript.” Kiryat Sefer 51 (1976): 283–288. [Hebrew]
Morso, Salvatore. Descrizione di Palermo antico: Ricavata sugli autori sincroni e i monumenti de’ tempi. Palermo: Lorenzo Dato, 1827.
Münster, Sebastian. Iosephus hebraicus diu desideratus et nunc ex Constantinopolitano exemplari iuxta Hebraismum. Basel, 1541.
Nisse, Ruth. Jacob’s Shipwreck. Diaspora, Translation, and Jewish-Christian Relations in Medieval England. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2017.
Picus Mirandula, Ioannes. Opera omnia. Basel: Heinrich Petril, 1557.
Ranzano, Pietro. Delle origini e vicende di Palermo di Pietro Ransano e dell’entrata di re Alfonso in Napoli. Edited by Gioacchino di Marzo. Palermo: Giovanni Lorsnaider, 1864.
Ranzano, Pietro. De auctore et primordiis ac progressu felicis urbis Panormi. In Descrizione di Palermo antico: Ricavata sugli autori sincroni e i monumenti de’ tempi. Edited by Salvatore Morso. Palermo: Lorenzo Dato, 1827.
Sapir Abulafia, Anna. “Twelfth-Century Humanism and the Jews.” Pages 161–175 in Contra Iudaeos: Ancient and Medieval Polemics between Christians and Jews. Edited by Ora Limor and Guy G. Stroumsa. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1996.
Scaliger, Joseph. Elenchus trihaeresii Nicolai Serarii. Frankfurt, 1605.
Sela, Shulamit. “The Genealogy of Sefo (Σωφαρ) ben Elifaz: The Importance of a Geniza Fragment for Josippon’s History.” Pages 138–143 in Genizah Research after Ninety Years: The Case of Judaeo-Arabic. Edited by Joshua Blau and Stefan C. Reif. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992.
Sela, Shulamit. The Arabic Josippon. 2 Volumes. Jerusalem: Ben-Zvi Institute for the Study of Jewish Communities in the East, 2013. [Hebrew]
Stein Kokin, Daniel. “The Josephan Renaissance: Flavius Josephus and his Writings in Italian Humanist Discourse.” Viator 47 (2016): 205–248.
Toaff, Ariel. “La storia di Zephò e la guerra tra Agnias e Turno nello Josephon.” Annuario di Studi Ebraici 3 (1965): 41–46.
Trinkaus, Charles. In Our Image and Likeness: Humanity and Divinity in Italian Humanist Thought. 2 Volumes. London: Constable, 1970.
Whealey, Alice. Josephus on Jesus: The Testimonium Flavianum Controversy from Late Antiquity to Modern Times. New York: Peter Lang, 2003.
Whealey, Alice. “The Testimonium Flavianum.” Pages 345–355 in A Companion to Josephus. Edited by Honora H. Chapman and Zuleika Rodgers. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2016.
Yosippon. Sefer ben Gorion. Edited by Tam ben Yahia. Constantinople, 1510.
Zeldes, Nadia. Reading Jewish History in the Renaissance. Christians, Jews, and the Hebrew Sefer Josippon. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2020.
Zeldes, Nadia. “The Last Multi-Cultural Encounter in Medieval Sicily: A Dominican Scholar, An Arabic Inscription and a Jewish Legend.” Mediterranean Historical Review 21 (2006): 159–191.
Josephus, AJ 18.63–66. On the Testimonium Flavianum: Feldman, “On the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum,” 18. For a comprehensive study, see Whealey, Josephus on Jesus; Whealey, “The Testimonium Flavianum.” Other relevant studies include Carleton Paget, “Some Observations on Josephus and Christianity” (see p. 565 on the inclusion of the Testimonium in all surviving manuscripts of AJ).
On Josephus in patristic literature, see Hata, “The Use and Misuse of Josephus;” Inowlocki, “Josephus and Patristic Literature;” for Christian views on the destruction of the Second Temple, see DEH; Ps-Heg discusses the rejection of Jesus at DEH 2.12.1 (e.g.); see 5.44 on the destruction of Jerusalem and the Second Temple; for the High Middle Ages, see Chazan, Daggers of Faith, 134. On this topic see also Nisse, Jacob’s Shipwreck, 26–29.
Nisse, Jacob’s Shipwreck, 52–61.
Cohen, “Esau as Symbol,” esp. 33–35; Holo, “Byzantine-Jewish Ethnography,” 924–925.
Myth of Zepho: Flusser, Sefer Josippon, 1.9–14, 2 (
Gerald of Wales, De principis instructione liber.
For the twelfth century intellectual revival and its impact on Christian-Jewish relations, see Abulafia, “Twelfth-Century Humanism and the Jews;” Cohen, Living Letters of the Law, 147–363.
Gerald of Wales, De principis instructione liber, 65–66.
For Roboratus identified as Robert of Cricklade, see Houben, Roger II of Sicily, 90–99n1 (and the bibliography cited there).
Gerald of Wales, De principis instructione liber, 65–66.
Nisse, Jacob’s Shipwreck, 21–23.
Extant SY manuscripts that include the interpolation on Jesus are: Ms. Budapest 355, Ms. Rothschild 24, Ms. Vatican, Borgiana ebr. 1, Ms. Paris, BnF 1280. See also the list and discussion in Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 50–51, 276. The passage is quoted and discussed by Flusser, Sefer Josippon, 1.438–444; 2.56.
Ms. Vatican, Borgiana ebr. 1, fol. 129v and Ms. Paris, BnF, 1280, fol. 123v. On the use of the expression “hanging on a tree,” see Gribetz, “Hanged and Crucified,” 159–180.
Gerald of Wales, De principis instructione liber, 65–66.
Corazzol, “‘Chiunque tu sia,” 429–457 (transcription and translation of Pico’s letter on 432–433); Stein Kokin, “Josephan Renaissance,” 239–242.
On Marsilio Ficino, see Celenza, “Marsilio Ficino.” On Ficino’s views on religion and Judaism, see Idel, “Prisca Theologia,” 137–178; Bartolucci, Vera religio.
Pico refers to “iustum Iosephum,” which Corazzol in his “Chiunque tu Sia” translates as the “complete Josephus,” whereas I prefer to translate this literally: the “right Josephus.” Stein Kokin also translates this portion of Pico’s letter in Stein Kokin, “Josephan Renaissance,” 239.
Original letter: Picus Mirandula, Opera omnia, 384–386. English translation by the present author.
Martini, Pugio fidei, 275. The various renditions of the name “Josephon, Yosefon” are characteristic of medieval inconsistency in the spelling of names.
Corazzol, “Chiunque tu Sia,” 435.
Stein Kokin, “Josephan Renaissance,” 205–248.
There are several possible explanations for Pico’s statement that SY included stories on the Ten Tribes, but these are beyond the scope of this paper. On this topic, see Zeldes, Reading Jewish History in the Renaissance, 81–82.
Edelheit, Ficino, Pico, and Savonarola, 212–213. On Ficino’s attitudes towards Judaism, see Idel, “Prisca Theologia,” 137–178.
Manuscript: Florence, Biblioteca Riccardiana, Ric. 426, c. 2r, quoted by Bartolucci, Vera religio, 110n2–3; In his “Josephan Renaissance” (225–226), Stein Kokin corrects Bartolucci and adds the missing third word insuper (“moreover”) in above-quoted passage from Ficino’s manuscript: Stein Kokin, “Josephan Renaissance,” 225–226.
Manetti, A Translator’s Defense. For Manetti’s Hebrew studies, see Garin, “L’umanesimo italiano e la cultura ebraica,” 363–365.
Manetti, Against the Jews and the Gentiles, 48–49, 54–55. For Manetti’s anti-Jewish views, see Trinkaus, In Our Image and Likeness, 2.722–734; Fubini, “L’ebraismo nei riflessi della cultura umanistica,” 283–324.
The copy of SY commissioned by Manetti is at the Vatican, BAV, ebr. 408; see Flusser, Sefer Josippon, 2.16.
For the sources quoted, see Manetti, Against the Jews and Gentiles, notes to the translation, 433–463.
Stein Kokin, “Josephan Renaissance,” 220–221.
See Flusser’s comment on this passage which is found in later interpolations, see: Flusser, Sefer Josippon, 1.439–440; Manetti’s copy: MS Vatican, ebr. 408, fols. 94v–95r. On the possibility that Manetti was looking for the passage on Jesus, see Corazzol, “‘Chiunque tu sia,” 436–438.
Martinii (Carpzov), Pugio fidei.
Paris, Sainte Geneviève Library, MS 1405. Autograph: Bobichon, “Le manuscript Latin de la Bibliothèque Sainte Geneviève (Paris),” 39–102. For a list of Hebrew and Aramaic texts used in this manuscript, see Bobichon, “Quotations, Translations, and Uses of Jewish Texts,” 267–293; Merchavia, “Pugio Fidei,” 203–234; Merchavia, “The Hebrew Versions of ‘Pugio fidei’,” 283–288.
Toulouse manuscript: Manuscrits numérisés de la Bibliothèque municipale de Toulouse, Pugio fidei contra judaeos et sarracenos Martin, Raymond (1230–1284?), fol. 30v–31r. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b10560110p/f7.item (accessed 10 October 2021).
Paris, Sainte Geneviève Library, MS 1405, fol. xxxvi; and compare with Flusser’s text of SY 8 (
Martinii (Carpzov), Pugio fidei, 275.
Paris, Sainte Geneviève Library, MS 1405, fol. xlix. This passage is faithfully rendered in Martini (Carpzov), Pugio fidei, 324.
The English translation is according to the JPS Bible, but Martini followed the Vulgate version which can be interpreted as referring to Cyrus as a Messiah (Christ): “haec dicit Dominus christo meo Cyro.” The Cyrus stories in the Sainte Geneviève manuscript appear in fol. xxxv–xxxvi.
Flusser, Sefer Josippon, 2.310, 16–42; Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 37–102, 276.
See Josephus, AJ 20.137, 161–172, 177–178; Vita 13, 37; BJ 2.247–270. A version of this story appears in DEH 2.6. However, there too the villain is not King Agrippa but the robber “Eleazarus princeps latronum,” as in Redaction A (i.e., Flusser’s edition) of SY 59 (
Philis is probably Marcus Antonius Felix, procurator of Judea (52?–60). For his mentions in Josephus’ works, see note 39 above.
Flusser, Sefer Josippon, 1.274–275; Ms Borgiana ebr. 1 (F 11654) fol. 29. For a list of manuscripts according to the different redactions, see Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 276–277.
Flusser, Sefer Josippon, 1.272–274; Holo, “Byzantine-Jewish Ethnography,” 946–947.
Ranzano, Delle origini e vicende di Palermo.
On Pietro Ranzano’s career, see Coniglione, La provincia domenicana di Sicilia, 30–34; Figliuolo, “Ranzano, Pietro.”
Text of the inscription: Ranzano, De auctore et primordiis ac progressu felicis urbis Panormi in Morso, Descrizione di Palermo antico, 48–49. For the vernacular version, see Ranzano, Origini e vicende di Palermo, 63. The English translation is mine.
Zeldes, “The Last Multi-Cultural Encounter in Medieval Sicily,” 159–191; Zeldes, Reading Jewish History in the Renaissance, 55–63.
On the figure of Zepho/Sefo in SY, see Cohen, “Esau as Symbol,” 19–48; Sela, “The Genealogy of Sefo,” 138–143; Holo, “Byzantine-Jewish Ethnography,” 924.
Zeldes, Reading Jewish History in the Renaissance, 63–70.
A fragmentary copy of the text of the inscription was preserved in a manuscript by the Sicilian Martines, De situ Siciliae, Bcp, 3 Qq B 70.120. For the history of the deciphering of the inscription, see the discussion in Morso, Descrizione di Palermo antico, 57–67.
Ranzano, Origini e vicende di Palermo, 65.
Ranzano, Origini e vicende di Palermo, 65.
Ranzano, Origini e vicende di Palermo, 76–77.
On the foundation of Rome and the accepted chronology, see Grafton and Swerdlow, “Technical Chronology and Astrological History,” 454–465; Forsythe, A Critical History of Early Rome.
Gutiérrez García, “Estudio lingüístico de un romanceamiento castellano,” 259–284; Gutiérrez García, “La reescritura de la historia del segundo templo en la Castilla del siglo XV,” 183–200; other observations regarding the identification of the manuscript are the result of a long exchange of personal messages between the author of this article and Santiago Gutiérrez García.
The mother’s name is given as Hannah (Anna) in redaction C and in an exemplar of redaction B, Ms. Vatican, BAV, ebr. 408 (see note 27 above); in other versions the mother is nameless: Flusser, Sefer Josippon, 1.70.
The English translation is mine.
Sela, The Arabic Josippon, 37–46; Sela’s arguments are discussed by Saskia Dönitz in Dönitz, Überlieferung und Rezeption, 111–112.
Gutiérrez García, “Estudio lingüístico de un romanceamiento castellan,” 188–191 (quote at 190).
Sefer ben Gorion, Constantinople, 1510.
Dönitz, “Yosippon and the Greek Bible,” 224, 231–232.
Rufinus of Aquilea (ca. 345–ca. 411). Rufinus has been wrongly credited with translating the Antiquitates Judaicae and Contra Apionem, but he did indeed translate large portions of Josephus’ Bellum Judaicum as they appeared almost verbatim in Eusebius of Caesarea’s Historia Ecclesiastica, which Rufinus translated into Latin. See Leoni, “The Text of Josephus’s Works,” 153–156; Leoni, “Text of the Josephan Corpus,” 307–321; Leoni, “Translations and Adaptations;” Levenson and Martin, “The Ancient Latin Translations of Josephus,” 322–344.
Münster, Iosephus hebraicus, preface. On Münster ‘s translation of SY and his objections, see Zeldes, Reading Jewish History in the Renaissance, 140–143.
Münster, Iosephus hebraicus, preface.
Scaliger, Elenchus trihaeresii, 44; Grafton, Joseph Scaliger, 2.695–696; Grafton and Weinberg, Isaac Casaubon, 201–213. Zeldes, Reading Jewish History in the Renaissance, 147–152.