Subject: Re: tc-list Josephus Ant 18.3.3

From: [email-masked] (Jim Oxford)
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 1999 22:48:50 -0500

At 21:16 2/8/99, M A Robinson wrote:

>I suspect however, that Mr. Diehl is not inquiring so much about
>speculations regarding interpolation, but about the actual absence (not
>the expansion) of the passage regarding Christ in any source manuscripts
>or versions. In that regard, I know of none, but would welcome any
>information.
>

i do not have meier's piece handy, but it seems to me that he stated that
the slavonic version and one other (arabic?) did in fact include something
like, "they believed this one was the christ."

regards,

jim

Jim Oxford
Ph D candidate in NT
Baylor University
[email-masked]

---

From: "Jeffrey B. Gibson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 09:53:05 -0500

Jim Oxford wrote:
> 
> At 18:23 2/7/99, [email-masked] wrote:
> 
> >Denny Diehl here
> >
> >Perhaps this is not the right forum for this question.
> >If so, please forgive.
> >
> >Does anyone have a handle on Josephus in Ant 18.3.3
> >if there is textual evidence of it being an interpolation:
> >
> >    "Now, there was about this time, Jesus, a wise
> >    man, if it be lawful to call him a man ... He was
> >    the Christ..."
> 
> have a look at jp meier's "jesus in josephus:  a modest proposal," cbq 52
> (1990):  76-103.  meier treats the testimonium flavianum thoroughly,
> arguing that "this one was the christ" was a christian interpolation.

There are also discussions in Schurer and in F.F. Bruce's _Jesus Outside
the Gospels_. Moreover, a young contributer over on Crosstalk posted a
rather fulsome review of the passage earlier this Summer, I believe. So
check Crosstalk's archives.

Yours,

Jeffrey Gibson
-- 
Jeffrey B. Gibson
7423 N. Sheridan Road #2A
Chicago, Illinois 60626
e-mail [email-masked]

---

From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 10:01:47 -0500

Denny:

The Church Father Origen (185-254 A.D.) states in his work _Against Celsus
1:47_ that:

I would like to say to Celsus, who represents the Jew as accepting somehow
John as a Baptist, who baptized Jesus, that the existence of John the
Baptist, baptizing for the remission of sins, is related by one who lived no
great length of time after John and Jesus. For in the 18th book of his
Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus bears witness to John as having been a
Baptist, and as promising purification to those who underwent the rite. Now
this writer, although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after
the cause of the fall of Jerusalem and the destruction of the temple,
whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was the
cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to death
Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless ^× being, although against his
will, not far from the truth ^× that these disasters happened to the Jews as
a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus
(called Christ), ^× the Jews having put him to death, although he was a man
most distinguished for his justice. Paul, a genuine disciple of Jesus, says
that he regarded this James as a brother of the Lord, not so much on account
of their relationship by blood, or of their being brought up together, as
because of his virtue and doctrine. If, then, he says that it was on account
of James that the desolation of Jerusalem was made to overtake the Jews, how
should it not be more in accordance with reason to say that it happened on
account (of the death) of Jesus Christ, of whose divinity so many Churches
are witnesses, composed of those who have been converted from a flood of
sins, and who have joined themselves to the Creator, and who refer all their
actions to His good pleasure.

He says that Josephus did not believe Jesus to be the Messiah. This seems to
indicate some type interpolation

At 05:23 PM 2/7/99 -0600, you wrote:
>___________________________________________________________________
>You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
>Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
>or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]
>
>

Kevin W. Woodruff, M.Div.
Library Director/Reference Librarian
Professor of New Testament Greek
Cierpke Memorial Library
Tennessee Temple University/Temple Baptist Seminary
1815 Union Ave. 
Chattanooga, Tennessee 37404
United States of America
423/493-4252 (office)
423/698-9447 (home)
423/493-4497 (FAX)
[email-masked] (preferred)
[email-masked] (alternate)
http://web.utk.edu/~kwoodruf/woodruff.htm

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 11:59:25 -0600

Kevin W.,  Denny Diehl here

>The Church Father Origen (185-254 A.D.) states in his work _Against 
>Celsus 1:47_ that:

>For in the 18th book of his Antiquities of the Jews, Josephus 
>bears witness to John as having been a Baptist, and as promising 
>purification to those who underwent the rite. Now this writer, 
>although not believing in Jesus as the Christ, in seeking after
>whereas he ought to have said that the conspiracy against Jesus was 
>the cause of these calamities befalling the people, since they put to 
>death Christ, who was a prophet, says nevertheless ^× being, although 
>against his will, not far from the truth ^× that these disasters
happened 
>to the Jews as a punishment for the death of James the Just, who was 
>a brother of Jesus (called Christ), ^× 

>From this quote (from Origen) it seems he is knowledgable of the
Testimonium Flavianum.  Do you agree?

---

From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:22:20 -0500

Denny:

I think at best it would be an argument from silence but Eusebius quotes the
Testimonium Flavianum in his Ecclesiatical History.

Kevin

---

From: "Kevin W. Woodruff" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1999 17:28:16 -0500

the article is:

Yamauchi, Edwin M                            
Josephus and the scriptures                  
Fides et Historia 13 No 1:42-63 Fall 1980    
                                             
The author compares Josephus' Antiquities with passages in        
Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Psalms, Daniel, Esther, and             
Ezra-Nehemiah.  The comparisons reveal much that is tendentious   
and misleading in Josephus.  On the other hand,  Josephus         
provides valuable information on the Herodians and John the       
Baptist.  The controversial passage about Jesus, the Testimonium  
Flavianum, was probably authentic though interpolated.  Also      
discussed are the Slavonic Josephus, the Arabic Josephus,  and    
Josephus' description of the Jewish-Roman War.  Full references   
to the latest literature are included.                            

At 09:47 AM 2/10/99 -0700, you wrote:
>While I don't have the bib info handy, I believe Edwin Yamauchi did 
>some work on this passage back in the 80's as well and published 
>a number of articles on the subject.  Periodical indexes should help 
>locate them.
>
>> Denny:
>> 
>> A good discussion of this passage is in F. F. Bruce's _Jesus and Christian
>> Origins Outside the New Testament._ Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1974, pages 32-53
>> 
>> 
>Dave Washburn
>http://www.nyx.net/~dwashbur
>A Bible that's falling apart means a life that isn't.
>
>