tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post8784232694054262803..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: What did Josephus Really Say about JesusVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77789522018654908092013-06-28T13:13:18.860-07:002013-06-28T13:13:18.860-07:00By "this week" my mind apparently meant ...By "this week" my mind apparently meant "late June 2013". {lopsided g}<br /><br /><a href="http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2013/06/jesus-josephus-and-testimonium-slavianum_28.html" rel="nofollow">First part of the article is now up!</a><br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-25306886575249989012010-08-16T05:18:31.091-07:002010-08-16T05:18:31.091-07:00Oops! -- I never did post up that series on the Sl...Oops! -- I never did post up that series on the Slavium... {lopsided g!}<br /><br />Mental note to try to get to that this week... (It isn't hugely important, just kind of interesting in an auxiliary way.)<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-71549534158756225802010-08-15T04:28:47.094-07:002010-08-15T04:28:47.094-07:00Interesting read. Thank you.Interesting read. Thank you.Blaise Pascalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03299428815677198501noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50147317224832370272010-08-14T11:02:01.479-07:002010-08-14T11:02:01.479-07:00Incidentally, it is nice to see a Price commenting...Incidentally, it is nice to see a Price commenting on Josephus who is not a crackpot!R O'Briennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76900446769221595632010-08-14T10:53:03.557-07:002010-08-14T10:53:03.557-07:00Alice Whealey's 2003 book is excellent but hav...Alice Whealey's 2003 book is excellent but have you all read her 2008 article?<br /><br />Whealey, A. 2008. "The Testimonium Flavianum in Syriac and Arabic". New Testament Studies. 573–590<br /><br />She argues that the version preserved by Michael the Syrian is closest to the original:<br /><br />"In fact, much of the<br />past impetus for labeling the textus receptus Testimonium a forgery has been<br />based on earlier scholars’ anachronistic assumptions that, as a Jew, Josephus<br />could not have written anything favorable about Jesus. Contemporary scholars of<br />primitive Christianity are less inclined than past scholars to assume that most<br />first-century Jews necessarily held hostile opinions of Jesus, and they are more<br />aware that the line between Christians and non-Christian Jews in Josephus’ day<br />was not as firm as it would later become.5 The implication of this is that supposedly<br />Christian-sounding elements in either the textus receptus or in Michael’s<br />Testimonium cannot be ruled inauthentic a priori."<br /><br />...<br /><br />"This study thus also implies that it is<br />Michael’s Testimonium that is much more important as a witness to Josephus’<br />original text about Jesus than Agapius’ Testimonium. By far the most important<br />aspect of Michael’s Testimonium in terms of recovering Josephus’ original passage<br />is its reading ‘he was thought to be the Messiah’, because this reading is independently supported by Jerome’s very early translation of the Testimonium, and<br />because it can readily explain Origen’s claim that Josephus did not believe in Jesus<br />as the Messiah. Therefore the most important aspect of Agapius’ text is its reading<br />that Jesus was ‘perhaps’ the Messiah, because this reading lends weight to the<br />hypothesis that Michael’s qualification of Jesus’ Messianic status was based on an<br />older exemplar of the Testimonium rather than being created by Michael ex<br />nihilo."<br /><br />...<br /><br />"In arguing that Agapius’ Testimonium was closer to Josephus’ original passage<br />about Jesus than any extant Testimonium, Pines followed a long line of earlier<br />scholars who assumed that Josephus’ original passage about Jesus must have<br />been very different from the textus receptus Testimonium, which these same<br />scholars assumed to have been substantially rewritten by a Christian forger.43 In<br />contrast, in arguing that Michael’s Testimonium, which is generally close to the<br />textus receptus Testimonium and which has clearly been taken from a recension<br />of the Syriac Historia Ecclesiastica, is more authentic than Agapius’ Testimonium,<br />this study implies that the textus receptus Testimonium is much closer to the passage<br />that Josephus originally wrote about Jesus than is often assumed. Indeed, the<br />evidence of Michael the Syrian’s Testimonium, used in conjunction with the evidence<br />of Jerome’s Testimonium, indicates that the only major alteration44 that has<br />been made to Josephus’ original passage about Jesus is the alteration of the<br />phrase ‘he was thought to be the Messiah’ to the textus receptus phrase ‘he was the<br />Messiah’."R O'Briennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-70879090285629701962010-08-13T17:07:50.680-07:002010-08-13T17:07:50.680-07:00It's very nice to see someone writing on this ...It's very nice to see someone writing on this issue who has read both Whealey and Feldman.Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09752886510692318211noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35660970792165082952010-03-15T05:33:55.005-07:002010-03-15T05:33:55.005-07:00What's even more interesting, is that there...What's even more interesting, is that there's an Old Slavic version of <i>The Jewish War</i> that contains a very different version of the TF (thus cutely nicknamed "the Testimonium Slavium" by scholars {g}); and when the same principles are applied to it as are normally applied in evaluating the TF from <i>The Antiquities</i>, it results in much the kind of expanded second-or-thirdhand report we could expect Josephus to have gotten (and to be willing to report in a pro-Jewish Roman apologetic).<br /><br />I've been meaning to post up a series on this for a while over at the Cadre, actually. I hope this reminds me to do it soon. {g!}<br /><br />JRPJason Pratthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01602238179676591394noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45044432865813209312010-03-13T13:21:20.217-07:002010-03-13T13:21:20.217-07:00One thing that needs to be remembered about Joseph...One thing that needs to be remembered about Josephus is he was synergistic and tried to reconcile Judaism and Greek philosophy to together into one common belief. I do not see anything unlikely in his throwing Christianity into the pot too on a principle of unifying everything together into one common belief where every "good" teacher is respected. I therefore question that this passage should be simply thrown out.Mike Erich the Mad Theologianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04682504413797395786noreply@blogger.com