In a message dated 01/01/01 20:26:59 GMT Standard Time, may1478@hotmail.com
writes:
> AutismUK writes:
>
>>>Why are you about the only person on the planet who thinks the TF is real
>>>?
>
> Of course, this is bunk. The majority of NT scholars accept the historical
> reference to Jesus in this passage.
I know (in the sense that the accept the historicity of Jesus statements).
In terms of "real" I meant "entirely true word for word".
You may not have been following this, but Steven Jones thinks
it is entirely factual, and Josephus became a Christian, and that he would
have refuted the actions of Jesus described in the Gospels, because
he would have known if they weren't being born only 5 or so years later.
Or something like that. I can only refer you to his original treatise on
Josephus really.
> Testimonium Flavianum: The State of the Question" in Christological
> Perspectives, e.g.. Robert F. Berkey and Sarah A. Edwards (New York:
> Pilgrim, 1982). Some liberal scholars even leave the entire passage
intact!
> (e.g. A.M. Dubarle, the French scholar).
> According to Feldman's count, 4 scholars regard the larger passage as
> completely genuine, 6 more as mostly genuine; 20 accept it with some
> interpolations, 9 with several interpolations; 13 regard it as being
totally
> an interpolation.[ Feldman, Louis H. Josephus and Modern Scholarship.
> Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1984. P. 684-91]
All right. It was a *bit* of an exaggeration :)
I'm surprised at the terminus values. Chopping out the whole thing seems
a bit gratuitous ; a real "anti Jesus" bias. I can only reason that the
rationale
for doing it is "Jesus denial". I suppose one could argue that the original
isn't "knowable" as such, so one wouldn't be able to know what it actually
said.
OTOH there isn't really much support for the authenticity of the *whole*
passage I can think of.
> The MAJORITY view among scholars is that the passage is authentic, barring
> some interpolation. Ben Witherington III renders the passage as many other
> scholars do:
>
> "At this time there appeared Jesus, a wise man…a doer of startling things,
a
> teacher of people who receive the truth with pleasure. And he gained a
> following both among many Jews and among many of Greek origin….And when
> Pilate, because of an accusation made by the leading men among us,
condemned
> him to the cross, those who loved him previously did not cease to do
so….And
> up until this very day the tribe of Christians, named after him, has not
> died out." (Ant. 18.3.3)
I am no particular fan of Witherington. But I wouldn't object too strongly
to this particular rendering. I am not sure of the "receive the truth with
pleasure", or the "up until this very day....." bit which always puzzled me
slightly. This was written 93AD wasn't it (in theory !) so I suppose it isn't
too unreasonable.
I suppose the point is that the bits that are removed "the some
interpolations"
are the bits that are specifically useful to Christianity (as opposed to the
bare
historicity of Jesus questions) ; this may explain why this passage wasn't
used until Eusebius' time. What level of "cutting out" is this in the above
classification ?
> Certainly this middle-ground is the most reasonable view, and more and
more
> scholars are adopting it as Luke Timothy Johnson, NT Professor at Emory,
> notes. Even John Dominic Crossan, who is regarded by many as the most
> prominent liberal scholar alive today, accepts the passage with
> interpolation. Crossan is no friend to traditional Christianity, as he
> believes the reason Jesus' body was missing is due to it having been eaten
> by dogs beneath the cross, or birds while ON the cross.
I agree ; interpolation is the most reasonable view. I am surprised that
Feldman can find as many as four scholars who view it is accurate in
the original.
> Thackeray, whom Meier describes as the "former 'prince' of Jospehan
> scholars," formerly regarded the entire set of passages as a forgery, but
> later changed to the middle-ground view of partial interpolation.
I don't think the language is appropriate for a forgery ; the version you
give has the mainly Christian bits cut out.
> Biblical scholar Craig Blomberg states: "many recent studies of Josephus,
> however, agree that much of the passage closely resembles Josephus' style
of
> writing elsewhere….most of the passage seems to be authentic and is
> certainly the most important ancient non-Christian testimony to the life
of
> Jesus which has been preserved."[C. Blomberg, The Historical Reliability
of
> the Gospels (Downers Grove: Inter-Varsity Press, 1987) p.201]
Wouldn't have a problem with this.
> "many scholars are prepared to accept much or all of the remainder of the
> text as genuine" (Barnett, 1986)
Somewhat vague. "Much" is okay, "all" I find rather surprising.
> Even if the material containing the alleged Christian interpolation is
> removed, the vocabulary and grammar of the section “cohere well with
> Josephus’ style and language” (Meier, 1990, p. 90). In fact, almost every
> word (omitting for the moment the supposed interpolations) is found
> elsewhere in Josephus (Meier, p. 90). Were the disputed material to be
> expunged, the testimony of Josephus still would verify the fact that Jesus
> Christ actually lived.
This is not something I question.
> Habermas therefore concluded:
> "There are good indications that the majority of the text is genuine.
There
> is no textual evidence against it, and, conversely, there is very good
> manuscript evidence for this statement about Jesus, thus making it
difficult
> to ignore. Additionally, leading scholars on the works of Josephus
> [Daniel-Rops, 1962, p. 21; Bruce, 1967, p. 108; Anderson, 1969, p. 20]
have
> testified that this portion is written in the style of this Jewish
> historian." (1996, p. 193).
Hm. Fair enough.
> R.C. Stone writes: "The passage concerning Jesus has been regarded by some
> as a Christian interpolation; but the bulk of the evidence, both external
> and internal, marks it as genuine.
Difficult to tell what this means ; depends upon what it is referring to. I
don't think it is support for the Gospel narratives beyond the very broad
outlines.
> Josephus must have known the main facts
> about the life and death of Jesus,
You sometimes wonder if this vagueness is deliberate. What does this
"mean" ? I mean what does "known" mean ? Known they were true or
known that someone had told him they were true :)
> and his historian's curiosity certainly
> would lead him to investigate the movement which was gaining adherents
even
> in high circles. Arnold Toynbee rates him among the five greatest Hellenic
> historians..." (R.C. Stone, "Josephus" in ZPEB, vol 3:697)
Which kind of makes me wonder why he wrote so little about it :)
> Far from concluding that Jesus is not referred to at all by Josephus, the
> Jewish scholar Paul Winter concludes:
> "Although Josephus certainly did not call Jesus the Messiah and did not
> assert that his resurrection on the third day had been announced by divine
> prophets, the impression gained from an intimate study of his report is
that
> he was not on the whole unsympathetic toward Jesus."[P. Winter, "Josephus
on
> Jesus." JHS 1 (1968): 301.]
I think this is perhaps reasonable ; an "impression" is about all you can
make of this.
> Another eminent Jewish scholar, Geza Vermes similarly concludes: "All this
> seems to imply that Josephus deliberately chose words reflecting a not
> unsympathetic neutral stand."[G. Vermes, "The Jesus Notice of Josephus
> Re-examined," JJS 38 (1987): 10]
> New Testament historian F.F. Bruce sums up the evidence that Josephus
> provides us with:
>
> "We have therefore very good reason for believing that Josephus did make
> reference to Jesus, bearing witness to (a) His date, (b) His reputation as
a
> wonder-worker, (c) His being the brother of James, (d) His crucifixion
under
> Pilate at the information of the Jewish rulers, (e) His messianic claim,
(f)
> His being the founder of 'the tribe of Christians' and probably (g) the
> belief in His rising from the dead."[F.F. Bruce, The New Testament
> Documents: Are they Reliable?, p. 112]
Err ? Why ? I think "bearing witness" is a bit strong. It may perhaps be more
accurate to say that he bore witness to others saying that.
> Also, see Jeff Lowder's article at:
Read it ; very good.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 01 2001 - 18:43:27 EST