Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 04-30-2012, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cege

I thought there were no authentic versions of Josephus references to the Jesus Christ of the biblical gospels, Acts, and letters???

Because the above reconstruction is not authentic. It is a hypothetical version of the text that might have existed before it was corrupted by a later editor.

Wrong. This "reconstruction" is in fact very much like the extant cite found in a Syriac source that happens to predate any extant ms. of the complete Antiquities. This earliest Syriac source is very much extant, not hypothetical, and reads as follows --

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. --

-- You were saying?

Chaucer

The strawman "TF" that was produced in "Did Jesus Exist? page 61 does NOT match YOUR Syriac source so your statement is COMPLETELY erroneous.

The Strawman "TF" in Ehrman's book does NOT include that Jesus was perhaps the Messiah and the reported Resurrection.

Ehrman ought to know that imaginary evidence is NOT used to re-construct the past.

spin · 04-30-2012, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

...

Did you bother to read and understand the point of the OP?

Stein's above that sort of thing.

hjalti · 04-30-2012, 10:11 PM

Hmm... didn't Ken Olson write an article about that? (the syriac being dependent on the TF)

Toto · 04-30-2012, 11:37 PM

I think that Chaucer has confused the Syriac version with an Arabic version that was presumably based on an earlier Syriac version - but there are later Syriac versions that are more like the Greek. This may indicate that the Arabic version that Chaucer quoted was derived from the Greek, rather than reflecting an earlier version of the passage.

Doherty goes through the scholarship on the issue.

Quote:

A version of the Testimonium appears in a 10th century history of the world by Agapius, the Melchite Christian bishop of Hierapolis in Asia Minor. He wrote in Arabic, but his discussion of Josephus is judged to have come from a Syriac source, itself derived from a Greek one, making it at least third-hand. ....

G. A. Wells notes (The Jesus Myth, p.216):

“Bammel thinks that Agapius’ version may have originated in an Islamic environment, as it states that ‘Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die,’ the last three of these words being unrepresented in the Greek text. The Koran denies that Jesus was put to death; hence the contrary assertion became of vital importance to Christians in Islamic times.”

Can we be sure, then, that nothing else in the Agapius version was influenced by Islamic or local outlooks, in keeping with the principle active in all free paraphrases to rework according to contemporary conditions, ideology and style?

... Agapius is thought to draw on a Syriac predecessor, and yet two centuries after Agapius a version of the Testimonium appears in Syriac in the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian. That version still contains most of the elements familiar from the standard text which the earlier Agapius lacked, that Jesus was “more than a man, a worker of glorious deeds and a teacher of truth,” along with a committed “he appeared to them after three days,” and the remark that the Christian movement still survives. (Michael, however, hedges as Agapius does on the matter of Jesus’ identity: “He was thought to be the Messiah.”) It would seem, then, that Syriac renditions of Josephus had their own range of content, and that the Agapius version actually postdates the one found later in Michael.

Roger Viklund as written much more here

la70119 · 05-01-2012, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chaucer

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Because the above reconstruction is not authentic. It is a hypothetical version of the text that might have existed before it was corrupted by a later editor.

Wrong. This "reconstruction" is in fact very much like the extant cite found in a Syriac source that happens to predate any extant ms. of the complete Antiquities. This earliest Syriac source is very much extant, not hypothetical, and reads as follows --

At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders. --

-- You were saying?

Chaucer

I'm certain Toto's right on this one, Chaucer. Notice one telltale line:

Quote:

Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die.

The phrase "and to die" was added to address a Muslim claim that Jesus was NOT crucified.

The Qur'an Surat An-Nisā' 4:157

Quote:

And [for] their saying, "Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah ." And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.

http://quran.com/4/157

Our received Antiquities 18.3.3 in its Greek original and the English translation by Wm. Whiston has this about his crucifixion:

Quote:

καὶ αὐτὸν ἐνδείξει τῶν πρώτων ἀνδρῶν παρ᾽ ἡμῖν σταυρῷ ἐπιτετιμηκότος Πιλάτου

And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross.

They would have used the line about his showing up alive the third day as "proof" that Jesus wasn't crucified but that Pilate only sentenced him and he either escaped or was not killed on the cross.

Muslims still do that.

.

Solo · 05-02-2012, 09:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrewcriddle

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Hi Andrew,
this is an unconvincing argument, I am afraid. What Ant 20.9's "him called Christ" and the "tribe of Christians" in the TF assume as "background knowledge" is the recognition of "Christ" (hence "Christians") as a family name or a restricted cognomen by which to identify an individual (and the cult in his name). IIUC "Christ" for Josephus was a Jewish royal epithet.

Best,
Jiri

The word "Christ" IIUC is not used at all by Josephus apart from the Christian refererences.

Andrew Criddle

That is true AFAIK, but does not change much on the issue at hand. Would Josephus use "brother of the one called Christ" as a casual, offhand identifier, without elaborating on it ? I am skeptical: in the Jewish War 6.5.4 he writes:

'But now, what did elevate [the Jews] in undertaking this war, was an ambiguous oracle that was also found in their sacred writings, how , "about that time , one from their country should become governor of the habitable earth." The Jews took this prediction to belong to themselves in particular and many of the wise men were thereby deceived in their determination. Now, this oracle certainly denoted the rule of Vespasian, who was appointed emperor in Judea. '

There can be little doubt I think Josephus references here the expected messiah (the Christ), even though the name is not used explicitly. At any rate, I have yet to see informed writing that would deny this.

Best,
Jiri

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

04-30-2012, 10:11 PM	#53
hjalti Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Iceland Posts: 761	Hmm... didn't Ken Olson write an article about that? (the syriac being dependent on the TF)

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.