NOTICE
(Bibliotheca Gallandiana, vol. XIV, Proleg. p. 111.)
A IV. Cavæus adds that he nowhere makes mention of the Nestorian heresy, neither in the catalogue nor elsewhere. Since this arose in A.D. 418, or at the latest 419, we are compelled from this again to depress his age to no later than the beginning of the fifth century. Indeed, it must be admitted that at the end of chapter 139 *Hominicolae* (Man-worshippers) are commemorated among the heretics, by which name the Nestorians can be reckoned. But an appellation of this kind, because, as far as I remember, it occurs only in the writers of the Middle Ages, can easily lead us into the suspicion of it being an interpolation by someone. These are especially from Cavæus.
V. We can also append some other observations. In chapter 25 the author lists the canonical books of the Old Testament and enumerates them as twenty-one, not specifically listing the Paralipomena (Chronicles), perhaps because they are included under the Kings. That method of counting, furthermore, is older than the tenth or eleventh century; indeed, it is common in the earlier centuries of the Church, and even older among the Hebrews. For from Josephus (a) they were once counted by that number by the Israelites, namely for the number of the Hebrew letters: which Eusebius (b) also supposes from Origen: "There are, however, twenty-two books according to the Hebrews." Later, indeed, it obtained among the Jews that, by the thrice repeated letter Yod, twenty-four were counted, by which name *kať exochen* (by way of excellence) they even today call their whole biblical corpus: just as they are also taken by certain Christian interpreters, from the interpretation of the twenty-four elders who are mentioned in the Apocalypse. There is added the nomenclature of these same books in our Josephus, which expresses Origen very clearly, as is evident from no. 10, where the third and fourth of Kings are called *Vammelech David*: which likewise occurs in the cited passage of Eusebius.
VI. While Josephus brings forward the interpreters of Scripture (c), he does not commemorate Lucian, whose version was found at Nicomedia among the Jews under Constantine the Great, before the year of Christ 337, in which Constantine died. That translation, furthermore, according to Jerome (d), obtained among all the Oriental Churches from Antioch to Constantinople. It can hardly, therefore, be believed that Josephus was ignorant of a version so famous and vulgar, if not immediately upon its discovery, certainly after it had pervaded so many churches, if he had flourished as late as Fabricius wishes to suggest. Add that he used codices of Scripture that were too corrupt, which he certainly would not have done after the Lucianic edition. From these one might not unreasonably assign our author to the fourth century.
VII. This epoch of his age is confirmed by the fact that in chapter 150 he commemorates the last persecution brought upon the Church as having happened under Julian the Apostate, namely about A.D. 362.
VIII. Also, the antiquity of our writer is commended B by the fact that in chapter 450 he says Christ was born in A.M. 5500, which is indeed the historical era of the Greeks of Africanus, who flourished about A.D. 220, and which is most ancient among Greek Christians: which, only at the end of the fourth century under Theodosius, the civil era began to replace because of the indictions.
IX. Add, finally, that in chapter 144 he brings forward so many various kinds and names of heresies, that he most manifestly reveals himself a writer living in that age in which paganism was still spreading far and wide, and superstition obtained everywhere. This can be affirmed more probably of a writer of the fourth than of the eleventh century.
X. One thing seems to hinder this, that in chapter 436 he alleges Hippolytus the Theban: from which it might appear that Josephus flourished at the close of the eleventh century. And this is indeed the reason which tears Fabricius away from the opinion of Cavæus. But besides the fact that Fabricius himself suspected (e) that that chapter perhaps should be accepted as having been added by another hand, while he says: "If chapter 136 is by the author himself"; he admits others besides which equally overturn such an opinion and hypothesis. For, just as for us, a path would have to be taken to render an account of how Theodore of Canterbury, who died in 690, could have been the first to bring to England a copy of a man who flourished at the end of the eleventh century. Whatever he might answer, we would accommodate it to our hypothesis.
XI. But in truth it is evident that that chapter is a mere addition stitched on by another hand, because in the previous chapter 135 he already commemorated John and Zacharias in his own manner: namely, in very brief words and by way of inquiry; here, however, with the scene of the heading and the method of speaking changed, a historical fragment is brought forward in the prolix words of its own author. This difference abundantly points out that that was an interpolation: at the same time it shows the time of that transcribed codex, and of what age the codices were that provided that fragment added to Josephus, namely of the tenth century as Boerner, cited by Fabricius, maintains. C
XII. From those observations which we have brought forward, both our own and those of learned men, it clearly appears that we incline with a ready mind to that opinion which judges that this Christian Josephus flourished in the middle of the fourth century. But who this man might have been is a much more difficult and complicated question. Cavæus in the passage cited above writes: "I have often formerly suspected that this was none other than that Josephus of Tiberias, who from a Jew-apostle, or patriarchal assessor, became a Christian, and was raised by Constantine the Great to the dignity of a count. Concerning whose conversion and outstanding merits toward the Church, Epiphanius (f) narrates things that are truly wonderful, and quite prolixly." The learned man, however, has receded from his opinion, induced by this reasoning. Constantine the Great died in the year 337, before which time that Joseph of Tiberias must certainly have been raised to the dignity of a count. Since, furthermore, he commemorates in the penultimate place the Macedonian heresy, and Macedonius died in the year 360, and the heresy
was finally condemned in the year 381 at the second ecumenical council, it can hardly be believed that our Joseph was still alive at that time, seeing as he was already of a decrepit age—about 70 years old—in the year 355, when Epiphanius visited his home to see Eusebius of Vercelli, who was lodging with him. He would have been about 96 years old when Macedonius was condemned. Add that he lists in the final place the Anthropomorphite heretics, whose tenets were especially prevalent among the monks of Nitria in the year 399. These arguments deterred the learned man from his former opinion, and persuaded him to consider our Joseph to be someone other than the Tiberian Epiphanius mentioned.
XIII. But, to be frank about what I consider to be the case, these arguments do not strike me as being of such weight that I am forced to distinguish the Christian Joseph from the Tiberian one. I admit that the heresy of Macedonius was finally condemned in 381, but could his followers not have been produced as heretics before that year? I grant that the Anthropomorphite heresy was active among the monks of Nitria, especially in the year 399, but could they not have been counted among the heretics before that year, especially since they were considered as spawn of the Manichaeans, and were avoided by the orthodox immediately after the death of Audaeus, who died in the year 370? What of the fact that the commemoration of the Macedonian and Anthropomorphite heresy could be an addition that migrated from the margin into the text, a judgment which can also be made concerning the heresy of the Anthropolatrae, if indeed the Nestorians go by that name?
XIV. Nor is it altogether incredible that a man could reach the age of ninety-six, especially since that same Epiphanius, the friend and host of Joseph of Tiberias, was 115 years and three months old when he left Constantinople under Arcadius, as the same Cave notes (a). Furthermore, since no other person becomes known to us from those times to whom the *Hypomnesticon* is better suited than that Joseph of Tiberias, we follow Isaac Vossius in this matter, who does not distinguish our Joseph from the Tiberian one.
XV. It is certain that he is commonly recognized by the name of Joseph the Count, and that he has been enrolled among the saints by the Greeks and Latins, whose commemoration is assigned to the 22nd of July (b). St. Epiphanius learned of his life from Joseph himself and records it in his *Panarion*, from which others, such as Fleury, Baillet, etc., have drawn. The sum of it returns to this: Joseph was born in the year of Christ 286, in the city of Tiberias in Palestine, of an illustrious family among the Jews, and he discharged the office of apostle to their patriarch Hillel. When Hillel fell into a most grave illness, he summoned the bishop of neighboring Tiberias, from whom, under the pretense of seeking health, he received baptism. Joseph observed this secretly, and he also saw Hillel give no small sum of gold to the bishop so that he might make an offering on his behalf. Two or three days later, after Hillel had passed away, his young son, Judas, succeeded his father in the patriarchal dignity. Meanwhile, Joseph handled both the guardianship of the boy and the administration of the patriarchal affairs. From this it happened that, in the hope of finding a great sum of money, he opened the Tiberian treasury, yet he found nothing but books; among these were the Gospel of John and the Acts of the Apostles written in Hebrew. When Judas, abandoned to every crime, had perished in a foul manner by the evident power of God, that event struck Joseph’s soul so deeply that he never enjoyed peace. Being often called by the warning of God to believe in Christ, and finally having successfully performed the sign of the cross—blessed by himself—upon a possessed man to test the faith, and having cast out the demon, and the miracle being spread throughout the city (which the Jews nonetheless thought he had performed by the pronunciation and power of the Tetragrammaton), he was prompted by the impulse of the Holy Spirit to incline his mind more readily toward the faith; yet he did not allow himself to be baptized until some years later.
XVI. Meanwhile, having come to Cilicia in the course of his Jewish apostleship, he received the Gospels to read from the bishop of a certain city. Harassed by his own kin, he fled to Constantine the Great, from whom he obtained the dignity of count, and a permit, moreover, to build churches. In the year 355, he received into his home Eusebius of Vercelli, who was a fugitive in exile, to visit whom St. Epiphanius traveled the following year, 356. Joseph was then, by the account of the holy doctor, 70 years old; for which reason we have also marked his birthday to the year 286. We learn that at last he rested in a blessed end from the fact that he appears to be numbered among the saints by the Church.
XVII. Joseph’s *Memorial Libellus* was first edited by Fabricius in his *Codex Pseudepigraphus Veteris Testamenti* (c), from which we have taken it. Nevertheless, we have adorned our version for a reason often mentioned elsewhere; and we have ordered its text in such a way as to be of the greatest service to the reader’s convenience. Whoever he may have been, or in whatever age he may have lived, he provides us with many learned things that perhaps cannot be found elsewhere. Would that it had come down to us in its completeness! Or that some learned man, patient of labor, might make up for our loss with a similar effort.