Malachi151

http://www.earlyjewishwritings.com/josephus.html

According to Early Jewish Writings, Against Apion is a defense of Judaism and an opposition to "Antisemitism". Isn't this the most likely place that Josephus would mention Jesus or Christianity if he knew of them?

http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext01/agaap10.txt

Instead, we get no mention at all. What is the scholarly discussion on this topic?

jgibson000

What is your criterion for determining what is "likely" for Josephus to do and what is not, especially in Against Apion? How well grounded in the works and (so far as it might be ascertained) the mind of Josephus would you say your criterion is?

Do you know what the occasion and the specific aim of Against Apion actually is?

JG

neilgodfrey

Is it possible that you could share some of your learning and qualifications by offering an intro to these issues as applied to this specific question? I am sure many of us would appreciate a contribution along those lines and find it profitable and informative here. I am sure it would be appreciated more than posts like your last one that appear to be interested in little more than going beyond attempts to expose the gaps in other people's learning compared with yours.

Look forward to learning from more learned minds, not being bullied by them,


Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

gstafleu

I realize the question is not addressed to me, so I won't try to answer Y/N for M . However, given that you don't supply an answer (although possibly intimating your answer might go against M's suggestion), perhaps I can be allowed to throw in a guess as to a possible answer. Based, I bashfully admit, on just reading the first little bit of Against Apion (after all tomorrow is presents-tearing-open morning, so I have to get up early).

It seems that Josephus wants to address the fact that not everyone who read his Antiquities believes that the Jewish nation is indeed that old: "since I observe a considerable number of people giving ear to the reproaches that are laid against us by those who bear ill-will to us, and will not believe what I have written concerning the antiquity of our nation." His aim then seems to be to rectify that: "I therefore have thought myself under an obligation to write somewhat briefly about these subjects, in order to convict those that reproach us of spite and voluntary falsehood, and to correct the ignorance of others, and withal to instruct all those who are desirous of knowing the truth of what great antiquity we really are." The way he proposes to do that includes: "As for the witnesses whom I shall produce for the proof of what I say, they shall be such as are esteemed to be of the greatest reputation for truth, and the most skillful in the knowledge of all antiquity by the Greeks themselves." (I read this as saying not that he is going to quote Greeks but rather people who are held in esteem by the (apparently revered) Greek.)

The question then is: would Jesus be such a witness. Now it has often been stated that Josephus was not to enamored of rabble-rousing-messiah types, amongst whom Jesus, TF notwithstanding, is usually reckoned Josephus-wise. So it might make sense that, even if he had heard of him, Josephus might actually want to avoid mentioning Jesus rather than try to work him into the story.

A layperson's guess, but perhaps you had something like that in mind?

Gerard Stafleu

aa5874

I agree with you.

jgibson000

I am not attempting to show that I know more than others. I am trying to see if a claimant possesses the knowledge or insight he lays claim to or has good reason to say what he/she says. There is quite a difference.

I'm sorry you see me as engaged in bullying. I intend no such thing.

Nor do I see myself as refusing to make contributions. Asking people who make claims about what is "likely" for an ancient author to have done to state how they know what they claim to know is, as anyone who is familiar with Plato's Socrates knows, very much a contribution, indeed, an essential one, to an exchange of ideas, as well as legitimate and necessary pedagogy.

No dialogue of any merit ever occurs or moves forward without this.

JG

neilgodfrey

This is, in effect, not so subtle ad hominem.

Good pedagogy, not to mention harmonious social discourse, will focus on the questions and issues that are posed by others in a way that stimulates a desire to learn more.


Neil Godfrey

http://vridar.wordpress.com

jgibson000

Not quite. What Josepus writes in AA is determined to a large degree by what Appian himself said against Judaism.

But you have a point. Since as Josephus wanted to distance Judaism from any notion that the Zealots represented Judaism, was Judaism (that's a major theme in JW) , it would as you suggest, be counter to his aim in AA to make mention of, or appeal to the wisdom of, any of the men whom he viewed as precursors and participants within the Zealot movement.

Malachi151

Can we get back on topic here? As far as I care, all the replies so far can be deleted by the mods.

jgibson000

I'll be hanged if I know how that's the case, especially since I -- and everyone here -- has reason to suspect that Malachi's knowledge of Josephus is not as vast or well grounded as it would need to be to state with the apparent degree of confidence that he does what Jospehus was "likely" to do.

Tell that to Euthyphro.

In any case, what I saw in "MalachiI's" latest was no desire to learn, but a desire to lecture.

Enough for me tonight. My old cat -- who has been with me through the thick and thin of the last 20 years and who has been suffering from cancer recently -- just died in my arms as I was my composing this message.

I trust you'll excuse my lack of courtesy since loss has a strange effect of lessening one's tolerance for nonsense.

JG